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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
politics
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/27/trump-calls-un-club-for-people-to-have-good-time.html
|
Trump calls UN club for people to 'have a good time'
|
2016-12-27
|
President-elect Donald Trump lashed out at the United Nations on Monday days after the Security Council voted to condemn Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem .
Taking to Twitter , he said the U.N. has “ such great potential , ” but has become “ just a club for people to get together , talk and have a good time . So sad ! ”
Trump also gave a stark warning to the U.N. after Friday ’ s vote , saying “ As to the U.N. , things will be different after Jan. 20th , '' referring to the day he takes office .
The president-elect has taken a more pro-Israel stance since telling the Associated Press in an interview last December that he wanted to be “ very neutral ” on Israel-Palestinian issues . However , since getting into the thick of his presidential campaign , he has moved toward favoring Israel . He has said the Palestinians have been `` taken over '' by or are condoning militant groups .
The Obama administration abstained from Friday ’ s vote , brushing aside Trump ’ s demands that the U.S. exercise its veto power and providing a climax to years of icy relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu .
Israel ’ s ambassador to the U.S. slammed the resolution on Monday , suggesting the incoming Trump administration and Congress should take a close look at how much money the U.S. hands over to the U.N .
Ambassador Ron Dermer doubled down on Israel 's claim the U.S. orchestrated the resolution vote before abstaining last week in an interview with Fox News ' “ Special Report. ” Still , he gave few specifics . `` We have that evidence ... we 're going to present it to the new administration , and if they choose to share it with the American people , that 'll be their choice . ''
The ambassador responded to calls from some prominent Republicans to stop all U.S. funds bound for the U.N. `` I think a new president and Congress that wants to make sure that every penny of your money is going to something that protects and defends and advances U.S. interests -- I think there 's a lot of changes that could happen at the United Nations , '' Dermer said .
This year the U.N. Security Council has approved over 70 legally binding resolutions , including new sanctions on North Korea and measures tackling conflicts and authorizing the U.N. 's far-flung peacekeeping operations around the world . The General Assembly has also approved dozens of resolutions on issues , like the role of diamonds in fueling conflicts ; condemned human rights abuses in Iran and North Korea ; and authorized an investigation of alleged war crimes in Syria .
Trump 's criticism of the U.N. is by no means unique . While the organization does engage in large-scale humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts , its massive bureaucracy has long been a source of controversy . The organization has been accused by some Western governments of being inefficient and frivolous , while developing nations have said it is overly influenced by wealthier nations .
|
President-elect Donald Trump lashed out at the United Nations on Monday days after the Security Council voted to condemn Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
Taking to Twitter, he said the U.N. has “such great potential,” but has become “just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!”
Trump also gave a stark warning to the U.N. after Friday’s vote, saying “As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th," referring to the day he takes office.
The president-elect has taken a more pro-Israel stance since telling the Associated Press in an interview last December that he wanted to be “very neutral” on Israel-Palestinian issues. However, since getting into the thick of his presidential campaign, he has moved toward favoring Israel. He has said the Palestinians have been "taken over" by or are condoning militant groups.
The Obama administration abstained from Friday’s vote, brushing aside Trump’s demands that the U.S. exercise its veto power and providing a climax to years of icy relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. slammed the resolution on Monday, suggesting the incoming Trump administration and Congress should take a close look at how much money the U.S. hands over to the U.N.
Ambassador Ron Dermer doubled down on Israel's claim the U.S. orchestrated the resolution vote before abstaining last week in an interview with Fox News' “Special Report.” Still, he gave few specifics. "We have that evidence... we're going to present it to the new administration, and if they choose to share it with the American people, that'll be their choice."
The ambassador responded to calls from some prominent Republicans to stop all U.S. funds bound for the U.N. "I think a new president and Congress that wants to make sure that every penny of your money is going to something that protects and defends and advances U.S. interests -- I think there's a lot of changes that could happen at the United Nations," Dermer said.
This year the U.N. Security Council has approved over 70 legally binding resolutions, including new sanctions on North Korea and measures tackling conflicts and authorizing the U.N.'s far-flung peacekeeping operations around the world. The General Assembly has also approved dozens of resolutions on issues, like the role of diamonds in fueling conflicts; condemned human rights abuses in Iran and North Korea; and authorized an investigation of alleged war crimes in Syria.
Trump's criticism of the U.N. is by no means unique. While the organization does engage in large-scale humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts, its massive bureaucracy has long been a source of controversy. The organization has been accused by some Western governments of being inefficient and frivolous, while developing nations have said it is overly influenced by wealthier nations.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
8o5jSnPjCd12WIOc
|
|
coronavirus
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/26/us-coronavirus-stimulus-all-you-need-to-know
|
US coronavirus stimulus checks: are you eligible and how much will you get?
|
2020-03-26
|
Lauren Aratani
|
Most taxpayers will get a check from the $ 2tn economic package , the largest in US history
US coronavirus stimulus checks : are you eligible and how much will you get ?
The US has agreed on a $ 2tn stimulus package , the largest economic stimulus in US history , in response to the economic impacts of Covid-19 . While corporations will be the biggest recipients of the bailout , some of that money will be paid directly to Americans hit by the pandemic .
Most taxpayers will get a check in the mail , while those directly affected by the economic effects of Covid-19 are slated to receive robust government support .
Here ’ s what we know so far about how the new stimulus package will directly affect Americans in the coming weeks :
Congress will spend about $ 250bn for checks up to $ 1,200 per person that will go directly to taxpayers .
To be eligible for the full amount , a person ’ s most recently filed tax return must show that they made $ 75,000 or under . For couples , who can receive a maximum of $ 2,400 , the cutoff is $ 150,000 .
If a person makes more than $ 75,000 , the amount given goes down incrementally by $ 5 for every $ 100 increase in salary . So a person who makes $ 85,000 would get $ 700 while a person who makes $ 95,000 would get $ 200 .
If a person makes above $ 99,000 , or a couple makes above $ 198,000 , no check will be given .
There are some requirements and exceptions . Those getting a check must be living and working in the US and have a valid social security number . If a person is listed as a dependent on their parents ’ tax return – the case for many college students – they are excluded .
The Tax Foundation , a DC-based thinktank , estimates that 93.6 % of Americans will be eligible for a check coming from the stimulus package .
Taxpayers will be given $ 500 per child 16 or under listed as a dependent on their latest tax return .
That is still unclear . Experts say that Americans will probably not get the money until May , given how long it takes the Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) to send out checks . The treasury secretary , Steven Mnuchin , said those whose bank account information is already with the IRS from previous tax returns can expect a payment “ within three weeks ” .
For those who still need to give the IRS their bank account information , a web-based portal will be opening soon to allow people to provide the IRS with their information . The IRS says this is to make sure people get their checks immediately , instead of sending them through the mail .
This is not the first time the government has sent checks to Americans . The federal government gave up to $ 300 in 2001 and $ 600 in 2008 to taxpayers who met a certain income bracket to similarly stimulate the economy .
What if a person did not file their 2018 or 2019 return ?
The IRS recommends people file their 2018 or 2019 tax return as soon as possible to get the payment . A check will be sent to any qualified person so long as they file their return within 2020 .
A person may still be eligible even if they do not file the taxes . The IRS says people who typically do not file taxes – low-income taxpayers and some veterans – will need to file a “ simple tax return ” in order to get the payment . Social security beneficiaries will not need to fill out the tax return , even if they do not file their taxes , to get the payment .
Yes , specifically the bill will increase unemployment insurance by $ 600 for 13 weeks – about four months – for every person , added to the existing unemployment compensation a person gets from their state ’ s program .
The length and amount of compensation varies from state to state . A majority of states providing a maximum of 26 weeks of compensation , while average weekly compensation ranges from 20 % of a person ’ s wage to just over 50 % .
While unemployment insurance typically does not cover people who are self-employed – freelancers , contractors and gig workers – the bill comes with a “ pandemic unemployment assistance ” measure that will extend insurance to those workers .
Play Video 2:25 'The universe is collapsing ' : Bernie Sanders mocks Republicans over coronavirus aid – video
Not in this bill . Earlier last week , Donald Trump signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act , a bill worth about $ 100bn meant to expand paid sick leave and emergency paid leave , but it came with major loopholes . Companies with over 500 employees were not mentioned in the bill , while companies with under 50 employees can apply for exemptions .
The bill mandates 10 days of fully paid sick leave for employees of companies with 500 employees or less . Parents of those companies affected by their children ’ s school closing and those leaving for medical reasons can get 12 weeks of pay at 67 % of their salary .
Will there be anything to offset healthcare costs related to Covid-19 ?
Again , not in this bill . The Families First Coronavirus Response Act included a measure that mandated all Covid-19 testing is free , but treatment for any symptoms ( there is currently no cure for the illness ) still comes at a cost .
A few states have reopened enrollment for their health insurance programs to allow those concerned about costs to enroll , and three major health insurance companies said they will be waiving any high costs for treatment , but there are still stories of people getting bills for as much as $ 34,000 to cover treatment of the virus ’ s symptoms .
|
Most taxpayers will get a check from the $2tn economic package, the largest in US history
US coronavirus stimulus checks: are you eligible and how much will you get?
The US has agreed on a $2tn stimulus package, the largest economic stimulus in US history, in response to the economic impacts of Covid-19. While corporations will be the biggest recipients of the bailout, some of that money will be paid directly to Americans hit by the pandemic.
Most taxpayers will get a check in the mail, while those directly affected by the economic effects of Covid-19 are slated to receive robust government support.
Here’s what we know so far about how the new stimulus package will directly affect Americans in the coming weeks:
Who’s eligible for a check from the government?
Congress will spend about $250bn for checks up to $1,200 per person that will go directly to taxpayers.
To be eligible for the full amount, a person’s most recently filed tax return must show that they made $75,000 or under. For couples, who can receive a maximum of $2,400, the cutoff is $150,000.
If a person makes more than $75,000, the amount given goes down incrementally by $5 for every $100 increase in salary. So a person who makes $85,000 would get $700 while a person who makes $95,000 would get $200.
If a person makes above $99,000, or a couple makes above $198,000, no check will be given.
There are some requirements and exceptions. Those getting a check must be living and working in the US and have a valid social security number. If a person is listed as a dependent on their parents’ tax return – the case for many college students – they are excluded.
The Tax Foundation, a DC-based thinktank, estimates that 93.6% of Americans will be eligible for a check coming from the stimulus package.
What about parents?
Taxpayers will be given $500 per child 16 or under listed as a dependent on their latest tax return.
When will I get this money?
That is still unclear. Experts say that Americans will probably not get the money until May, given how long it takes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to send out checks. The treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, said those whose bank account information is already with the IRS from previous tax returns can expect a payment “within three weeks”.
For those who still need to give the IRS their bank account information, a web-based portal will be opening soon to allow people to provide the IRS with their information. The IRS says this is to make sure people get their checks immediately, instead of sending them through the mail.
This is not the first time the government has sent checks to Americans. The federal government gave up to $300 in 2001 and $600 in 2008 to taxpayers who met a certain income bracket to similarly stimulate the economy.
What if a person did not file their 2018 or 2019 return?
The IRS recommends people file their 2018 or 2019 tax return as soon as possible to get the payment. A check will be sent to any qualified person so long as they file their return within 2020.
What if a person does not file their taxes?
A person may still be eligible even if they do not file the taxes. The IRS says people who typically do not file taxes – low-income taxpayers and some veterans – will need to file a “simple tax return” in order to get the payment. Social security beneficiaries will not need to fill out the tax return, even if they do not file their taxes, to get the payment.
Does the package help unemployed workers?
Yes, specifically the bill will increase unemployment insurance by $600 for 13 weeks – about four months – for every person, added to the existing unemployment compensation a person gets from their state’s program.
The length and amount of compensation varies from state to state. A majority of states providing a maximum of 26 weeks of compensation, while average weekly compensation ranges from 20% of a person’s wage to just over 50%.
What about freelance and gig workers?
While unemployment insurance typically does not cover people who are self-employed – freelancers, contractors and gig workers – the bill comes with a “pandemic unemployment assistance” measure that will extend insurance to those workers.
Play Video 2:25 'The universe is collapsing': Bernie Sanders mocks Republicans over coronavirus aid – video
Have there been any changes to paid leave?
Not in this bill. Earlier last week, Donald Trump signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, a bill worth about $100bn meant to expand paid sick leave and emergency paid leave, but it came with major loopholes. Companies with over 500 employees were not mentioned in the bill, while companies with under 50 employees can apply for exemptions.
The bill mandates 10 days of fully paid sick leave for employees of companies with 500 employees or less. Parents of those companies affected by their children’s school closing and those leaving for medical reasons can get 12 weeks of pay at 67% of their salary.
Will there be anything to offset healthcare costs related to Covid-19?
Again, not in this bill. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act included a measure that mandated all Covid-19 testing is free, but treatment for any symptoms (there is currently no cure for the illness) still comes at a cost.
A few states have reopened enrollment for their health insurance programs to allow those concerned about costs to enroll, and three major health insurance companies said they will be waiving any high costs for treatment, but there are still stories of people getting bills for as much as $34,000 to cover treatment of the virus’s symptoms.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
IBgtqEHUEcjyMriR
|
national_security
|
Victor Hanson
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/7/why-fisa-gate-is-scarier-than-watergate/
|
OPINION: Why FISA-gate is scarier than Watergate
|
2018-02-07
|
Victor Davis Hanson
|
The Watergate scandal of 1972-74 was uncovered largely because of outraged Democratic politicians and a bulldog media . They both claimed that they had saved American democracy from the Nixon administration ’ s attempt to warp the CIA and FBI to cover up an otherwise minor , though illegal , political break-in .
In the Iran-Contra affair of 1985-87 , the media and liberal activists uncovered wrongdoing by some rogue members of the Reagan government . They warned of government overreach and of using the “ Deep State ” to subvert the law for political purposes .
We are now in the midst of a third great modern scandal . Members of the Obama administration ’ s Department of Justice sought court approval for the surveillance of Carter Page , allegedly for colluding with Russian interests , and extended the surveillance three times .
But none of these government officials told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the warrant requests were based on an unverified dossier that had originated as a hit piece funded in part by the Hillary Clinton campaign to smear Donald Trump during the current 2016 campaign .
Nor did these officials reveal that the author of the dossier , Christopher Steele , had already been dropped as a reliable source by the FBI for leaking to the press .
Nor did officials add that a Department of Justice official , Bruce Ohr , had met privately with Steele — or that Mr. Ohr ’ s wife , Nellie , had been hired to work on the dossier .
Unfortunately , such disclosures may be only the beginning of the FISA-gate scandal .
Members of the Obama administration ’ s national security team also may have requested the names of American citizens connected with the Trump campaign who had been swept up in other FISA surveillance . Those officials may have then improperly unmasked the names and leaked them to a compliant press — again , for apparent political purposes during a campaign .
As a result of various controversies , the deputy director of the FBI , Andrew McCabe , has resigned . Two FBI officials who had been working on special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s team in the so-called Russia collusion probe , Lisa Page and Peter Strzok , have been reassigned for having an improper relationship and for displaying overt political biases in text messages to each other .
The new FBI director , Christopher Wray , has also reassigned the FBI ’ s top lawyer , James Baker , who purportedly leaked the Steele dossier to a sympathetic journalist .
Once again , an administration is being accused of politicizing government agencies to further agendas , this time apparently to gain an advantage for Hillary Clinton in the run-up to an election .
There is also the same sort of government resistance to releasing documents under the pretext of “ national security . ”
There is a similar pattern of slandering congressional investigators and whistleblowers as disloyal and even treasonous .
There is the rationale that just as the Watergate break-in was a two-bit affair , Carter Page was a nobody .
But there is one huge ( and ironic ) difference . In the current FISA-gate scandal , most of the media and liberal civil libertarians are now opposing the disclosure of public documents . They are siding with those in the government who disingenuously sought surveillance to facilitate the efforts of a political campaign .
This time around , the press is not after a hated Nixon administration . Civil libertarians are not demanding accountability from a conservative Reagan team . Instead , the roles are reversed .
Barack Obama was a progressive constitutional lawyer who expressed distrust of the secretive “ Deep State. ” Yet his administration weaponized the IRS and surveilled Associated Press communications and a Fox News journalist for reporting unfavorable news based on supposed leaks .
Mr. Obama did not fit the past stereotypes of right-wing authoritarians subverting the Department of Justice and its agencies . Perhaps that is why there was little pushback against his administration ’ s efforts to assist the campaign of his likely replacement , fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton .
Progressives are not supposed to destroy requested emails , “ acid wash ” hard drives , spread unverified and paid-for opposition research among government agencies , or use the DOJ and FBI to obtain warrants to snoop on the communications of American citizens .
FISA-gate may become a more worrisome scandal than either Watergate or Iran-Contra . Why ? Because our defense against government wrongdoing — the press — is defending such actions , not uncovering them . Liberal and progressive voices are excusing , not airing , the excesses of the DOJ and FBI .
Apparently , weaponizing government agencies to stop a detested Donald Trump by any means necessary is not really considered a crime .
• Victor Davis Hanson , a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University , is the author of “ The Second World Wars : How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won ” ( Basic Books , 2017 ) .
|
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
The Watergate scandal of 1972-74 was uncovered largely because of outraged Democratic politicians and a bulldog media. They both claimed that they had saved American democracy from the Nixon administration’s attempt to warp the CIA and FBI to cover up an otherwise minor, though illegal, political break-in.
In the Iran-Contra affair of 1985-87, the media and liberal activists uncovered wrongdoing by some rogue members of the Reagan government. They warned of government overreach and of using the “Deep State” to subvert the law for political purposes.
We are now in the midst of a third great modern scandal. Members of the Obama administration’s Department of Justice sought court approval for the surveillance of Carter Page, allegedly for colluding with Russian interests, and extended the surveillance three times.
But none of these government officials told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the warrant requests were based on an unverified dossier that had originated as a hit piece funded in part by the Hillary Clinton campaign to smear Donald Trump during the current 2016 campaign.
Nor did these officials reveal that the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele, had already been dropped as a reliable source by the FBI for leaking to the press.
Nor did officials add that a Department of Justice official, Bruce Ohr, had met privately with Steele — or that Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, had been hired to work on the dossier.
Unfortunately, such disclosures may be only the beginning of the FISA-gate scandal.
Members of the Obama administration’s national security team also may have requested the names of American citizens connected with the Trump campaign who had been swept up in other FISA surveillance. Those officials may have then improperly unmasked the names and leaked them to a compliant press — again, for apparent political purposes during a campaign.
As a result of various controversies, the deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, has resigned. Two FBI officials who had been working on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team in the so-called Russia collusion probe, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, have been reassigned for having an improper relationship and for displaying overt political biases in text messages to each other.
The new FBI director, Christopher Wray, has also reassigned the FBI’s top lawyer, James Baker, who purportedly leaked the Steele dossier to a sympathetic journalist.
How does FISA-gate compare to Watergate and Iran-Contra?
Once again, an administration is being accused of politicizing government agencies to further agendas, this time apparently to gain an advantage for Hillary Clinton in the run-up to an election.
There is also the same sort of government resistance to releasing documents under the pretext of “national security.”
There is a similar pattern of slandering congressional investigators and whistleblowers as disloyal and even treasonous.
There is the rationale that just as the Watergate break-in was a two-bit affair, Carter Page was a nobody.
But there is one huge (and ironic) difference. In the current FISA-gate scandal, most of the media and liberal civil libertarians are now opposing the disclosure of public documents. They are siding with those in the government who disingenuously sought surveillance to facilitate the efforts of a political campaign.
This time around, the press is not after a hated Nixon administration. Civil libertarians are not demanding accountability from a conservative Reagan team. Instead, the roles are reversed.
Barack Obama was a progressive constitutional lawyer who expressed distrust of the secretive “Deep State.” Yet his administration weaponized the IRS and surveilled Associated Press communications and a Fox News journalist for reporting unfavorable news based on supposed leaks.
Mr. Obama did not fit the past stereotypes of right-wing authoritarians subverting the Department of Justice and its agencies. Perhaps that is why there was little pushback against his administration’s efforts to assist the campaign of his likely replacement, fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Progressives are not supposed to destroy requested emails, “acid wash” hard drives, spread unverified and paid-for opposition research among government agencies, or use the DOJ and FBI to obtain warrants to snoop on the communications of American citizens.
FISA-gate may become a more worrisome scandal than either Watergate or Iran-Contra. Why? Because our defense against government wrongdoing — the press — is defending such actions, not uncovering them. Liberal and progressive voices are excusing, not airing, the excesses of the DOJ and FBI.
Apparently, weaponizing government agencies to stop a detested Donald Trump by any means necessary is not really considered a crime.
• Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, is the author of “The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won” (Basic Books, 2017).
Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
Dh9TDjS7vKkaekpX
|
media_bias
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/14/questionable-reports-trump-fueled-violence-proliferate-on-social-media.html
|
Questionable reports of Trump-fueled violence proliferate on social media
|
2016-11-14
|
As if the 2016 climate couldn ’ t get any more divisive , false or questionable reports of violence linked to Donald Trump ’ s victory have gained steady traction on social media since last week – complicating efforts to distinguish fact from fiction amid very real political unrest .
In one case , a student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette claimed that two white men – one wearing a Trump hat – jumped out of a sedan , attacked her , and stole her hijab and her wallet . The unnamed woman also said the men knocked her to the ground and screamed racial slurs at her .
News of the attack quickly spread on social media , and soon some national media outlets including CNN began reporting it . The attack also was quickly condemned by the state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union .
“ The ACLU of Louisiana is outraged at the news of a young Muslim woman being assaulted and robbed of her hijab in Lafayette yesterday morning , ” the organization said in a written statement . “ The report that her attackers also shouted slurs and wore Donald Trump clothing is especially troubling in light of Mr. Trump ’ s frequent use of anti-Muslim rhetoric on the campaign trail . ”
“ There were a lot of things that didn ’ t make sense , ” Lafayette police spokesman Karl Ratcliff told The Acadiana Advocate . Ratcliff said the student ultimately confessed to making up the entire story after police pressed her for details .
Another report of questionable origin making the rounds involves a supposed surge in transgender teen suicides tied to the election . Claims that Trump 's victory triggered at least 10 suicides surfaced Wednesday when some started posting Facebook updates saying the information came from private support groups for parents with transgender children .
The stat was given a global spotlight after Guardian writer and Out magazine editor-at-large Zach Stafford tweeted that “ at least 8 trans youth have committed suicide in the wake of Trump ’ s win. ” He went on to report 10 teens took their lives .
Stafford later admitted he had no evidence to back up claims that any transgender teens had killed themselves because of Trump .
Such accounts have only muddled the picture of the very real unrest to seize the country since last week 's election . Harassment or violence has been attributed to both sides , in several documented cases .
In the upstate New York town of Wellsville , police have launched an investigation after someone drew a swastika symbol and spray-painted “ Make America White Again ” on the back wall of a community softball league ’ s dugout .
In Michigan ’ s Royal Oak Middle School , students were caught on video during their lunch period chanting “ build the wall . ”
Royal Oak Schools Superintendent Shawn Lewis-Lakin wrote in a statement that officials “ addressed this incident when it occurred . ”
“ We are working with our students to help them understand the impact of their words and actions on others in their school community , ” Lewis-Lakin wrote .
In Silver Spring , Md. , an Episcopal church in a heavily Latino suburb was vandalized . A banner advertising the church 's Spanish-language service was slashed Saturday night and the words “ Trump nation . Whites only ” were written on the back . The same phrase was written on a brick wall in the church ’ s memorial garden .
Last week , the beating of a suspected Trump supporter also was captured on video in Chicago .
Two Florida homes reportedly were vandalized with anti-Trump messages – this , as protests broke out in cities across the country , with one in Portland causing significant property damage .
Meanwhile , the Ku Klux Klan announced it plans to hold a victory rally for Trump in North Carolina next month .
Trump addressed the recent outbreak of racist rhetoric during an interview with `` 60 Minutes '' that aired on Sunday .
“ I am so saddened to hear that and I ’ ll say stop it , if it helps , ” he said when asked about the reports . “ I ’ ll say it right to the camera – stop it . ”
|
As if the 2016 climate couldn’t get any more divisive, false or questionable reports of violence linked to Donald Trump’s victory have gained steady traction on social media since last week – complicating efforts to distinguish fact from fiction amid very real political unrest.
In one case, a student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette claimed that two white men – one wearing a Trump hat – jumped out of a sedan, attacked her, and stole her hijab and her wallet. The unnamed woman also said the men knocked her to the ground and screamed racial slurs at her.
News of the attack quickly spread on social media, and soon some national media outlets including CNN began reporting it. The attack also was quickly condemned by the state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.
STUDENTS STAGE MASS WALKOUTS TO PROTEST TRUMP
“The ACLU of Louisiana is outraged at the news of a young Muslim woman being assaulted and robbed of her hijab in Lafayette yesterday morning,” the organization said in a written statement. “The report that her attackers also shouted slurs and wore Donald Trump clothing is especially troubling in light of Mr. Trump’s frequent use of anti-Muslim rhetoric on the campaign trail.”
The problem is: the incident was fabricated.
“There were a lot of things that didn’t make sense,” Lafayette police spokesman Karl Ratcliff told The Acadiana Advocate. Ratcliff said the student ultimately confessed to making up the entire story after police pressed her for details.
Another report of questionable origin making the rounds involves a supposed surge in transgender teen suicides tied to the election. Claims that Trump's victory triggered at least 10 suicides surfaced Wednesday when some started posting Facebook updates saying the information came from private support groups for parents with transgender children.
The stat was given a global spotlight after Guardian writer and Out magazine editor-at-large Zach Stafford tweeted that “at least 8 trans youth have committed suicide in the wake of Trump’s win.” He went on to report 10 teens took their lives.
Stafford later admitted he had no evidence to back up claims that any transgender teens had killed themselves because of Trump.
Such accounts have only muddled the picture of the very real unrest to seize the country since last week's election. Harassment or violence has been attributed to both sides, in several documented cases.
In the upstate New York town of Wellsville, police have launched an investigation after someone drew a swastika symbol and spray-painted “Make America White Again” on the back wall of a community softball league’s dugout.
In Michigan’s Royal Oak Middle School, students were caught on video during their lunch period chanting “build the wall.”
Royal Oak Schools Superintendent Shawn Lewis-Lakin wrote in a statement that officials “addressed this incident when it occurred.”
“We are working with our students to help them understand the impact of their words and actions on others in their school community,” Lewis-Lakin wrote.
In Silver Spring, Md., an Episcopal church in a heavily Latino suburb was vandalized. A banner advertising the church's Spanish-language service was slashed Saturday night and the words “Trump nation. Whites only” were written on the back. The same phrase was written on a brick wall in the church’s memorial garden.
Last week, the beating of a suspected Trump supporter also was captured on video in Chicago.
Two Florida homes reportedly were vandalized with anti-Trump messages – this, as protests broke out in cities across the country, with one in Portland causing significant property damage.
Meanwhile, the Ku Klux Klan announced it plans to hold a victory rally for Trump in North Carolina next month.
Trump addressed the recent outbreak of racist rhetoric during an interview with "60 Minutes" that aired on Sunday.
“I am so saddened to hear that and I’ll say stop it, if it helps,” he said when asked about the reports. “I’ll say it right to the camera – stop it.”
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
m5gqRyxwC7d3PAqL
|
|
tea_party
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/2016/01/09/462404642/the-tea-partiers-quandary-what-to-make-of-trumps-rise
|
The Tea Partier's Quandary: What To Make Of Trump's Rise?
|
2016-01-09
|
Npr Staff, Matt Kibbe
|
The Tea Partier 's Quandary : What To Make Of Trump 's Rise ?
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have spent most of the presidential race avoiding direct confrontations with each other . But the men are in first and second place in the polls , so that 's been straining the love .
This week , as NPR Politics put it , Trump went `` birther '' on his rival , questioning whether Cruz is even eligible for the White House because he was born in Canada . ( Many legal scholars say he is . )
But as the two candidates continue to lead GOP polls , some observers on the Republican side have expressed fear that either man — and Trump , in particular — will win the nomination . And that concern has not been limited to those in the party 's establishment .
Cue Matt Kibbe , former head of the tea party group FreedomWorks . Kibbe — who left FreedomWorks to lead Concerned American Voters , a superPAC supporting Sen. Rand Paul — says that while Trump taps into some of the same anxiety shared by tea partiers over political dysfunction , the businessman 's rise also signifies something much more dire .
`` I think if Donald Trump becomes the nominee , you 're almost guaranteed a third-party challenge , perhaps from the Republican side and the Democratic side , '' Kibbe tells NPR 's Scott Simon . `` And it might also lead to the death of the Republican party . ''
On the future of the candidate he supports , Rand Paul
I think we would all be mistaken if we made any bold predictions about what 's going to happen in Iowa and New Hampshire . It 's a particularly tumultuous primary season , and if you go back and look at 2012 , which was also pretty unpredictable , the people that were winning at this point ultimately did not win in Iowa . I think the ground game matters more than polling , and we 'll have to see what happens .
There 's two things going on . One is a clear sense of economic anxiety and the feeling amongst a lot of voters that the country 's headed in the wrong direction — combined with the sense that Washington does n't really give a damn .
The other thing that 's going on , which I think is more fundamental , and I think both Republicans and Democrats are struggling to understand this , is a transformational moment in politics . It 's more disintermediated ; the party bosses no longer get to decide who the choice is . And both the RNC [ Republican National Committee ] and the DNC [ Democratic National Committee ] , I think , are struggling with this new reality .
With social media , with the ability to raise money online , with the ability to drive your own message and organize your own get-out-the-vote machine without the party 's blessing , all sorts of candidates have become competitive . Donald Trump is definitely part of that , although he 's sort of the odd man out because he 's more of a cult of personality .
He 's definitely tapping into the anxiety that Washington is broken and that the economy is headed in the wrong direction . But the fundamental difference between the way I think about the tea party — and I 'm a card-carrying member of the tea party — is that we talked about the rule of law and we worried that President Obama was very much overstepping the powers of the presidency .
We wanted to see the power back in the hands of the people . And Donald Trump clearly does n't care about that stuff . He on a regular basis makes it very clear that as president he would do what 's necessary to get the job done .
On what Trump 's rise says about the two major political parties
I think they 're sort of walking on eggshells right now , and it goes back to this question about disintermediation . The two-party system has very much been dependent on the ability of party bosses to control the message , to control the money , to control who the candidates are from the top down . And the party that best understands that that world is no longer there is best going to flourish in this new environment .
I think in some ways Donald Trump is a creation of the Republican establishment 's unwillingness to accept this new world .
We wanted to see the power back in the hands of the people . And Donald Trump clearly does n't care about that stuff .
On whether Trump has been a beneficiary of the tea party 's rise
I 've looked at the data of this , and it depends on how you define the tea party . I talk to tea partiers every day , and he definitely has support from some of them and ... some of his strongest opposition comes from the tea party .
I think it gets to this question of executive power . But I also think that he 's drawing from a lot of Democrats , a lot of independents , a lot of people that have not been participating in the political process before .
To me , that 's part of the interesting part of this new world . You know , can we actually enfranchise more voters , can we engage more people in this process ?
And I should say , we should mention that the same dynamic is happening on the Democratic side . Bernie Sanders is in large part tapping into some of those same anxieties . He has , oddly enough , some of the same positions as Donald Trump on key issues ... on foreign policy , on immigration . Bernie Sanders has a history of being opposed to new immigration . It 's sort of that closed-system view that our best days are behind us .
And , of course , Bernie Sanders is giving Hillary fits in New Hampshire and Iowa .
|
The Tea Partier's Quandary: What To Make Of Trump's Rise?
Enlarge this image toggle caption Spencer Platt/Getty Images Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have spent most of the presidential race avoiding direct confrontations with each other. But the men are in first and second place in the polls, so that's been straining the love.
This week, as NPR Politics put it, Trump went "birther" on his rival, questioning whether Cruz is even eligible for the White House because he was born in Canada. (Many legal scholars say he is.)
But as the two candidates continue to lead GOP polls, some observers on the Republican side have expressed fear that either man — and Trump, in particular — will win the nomination. And that concern has not been limited to those in the party's establishment.
Cue Matt Kibbe, former head of the tea party group FreedomWorks. Kibbe — who left FreedomWorks to lead Concerned American Voters, a superPAC supporting Sen. Rand Paul — says that while Trump taps into some of the same anxiety shared by tea partiers over political dysfunction, the businessman's rise also signifies something much more dire.
"I think if Donald Trump becomes the nominee, you're almost guaranteed a third-party challenge, perhaps from the Republican side and the Democratic side," Kibbe tells NPR's Scott Simon. "And it might also lead to the death of the Republican party."
Enlarge this image toggle caption Win McNamee/Getty Images Win McNamee/Getty Images
Interview Highlights
On the future of the candidate he supports, Rand Paul
I think we would all be mistaken if we made any bold predictions about what's going to happen in Iowa and New Hampshire. It's a particularly tumultuous primary season, and if you go back and look at 2012, which was also pretty unpredictable, the people that were winning at this point ultimately did not win in Iowa. I think the ground game matters more than polling, and we'll have to see what happens.
On what's behind Donald Trump's rise
There's two things going on. One is a clear sense of economic anxiety and the feeling amongst a lot of voters that the country's headed in the wrong direction — combined with the sense that Washington doesn't really give a damn.
The other thing that's going on, which I think is more fundamental, and I think both Republicans and Democrats are struggling to understand this, is a transformational moment in politics. It's more disintermediated; the party bosses no longer get to decide who the choice is. And both the RNC [Republican National Committee] and the DNC [Democratic National Committee], I think, are struggling with this new reality.
With social media, with the ability to raise money online, with the ability to drive your own message and organize your own get-out-the-vote machine without the party's blessing, all sorts of candidates have become competitive. Donald Trump is definitely part of that, although he's sort of the odd man out because he's more of a cult of personality.
On whether Trump is tapping into tea party sentiment
He's definitely tapping into the anxiety that Washington is broken and that the economy is headed in the wrong direction. But the fundamental difference between the way I think about the tea party — and I'm a card-carrying member of the tea party — is that we talked about the rule of law and we worried that President Obama was very much overstepping the powers of the presidency.
We wanted to see the power back in the hands of the people. And Donald Trump clearly doesn't care about that stuff. He on a regular basis makes it very clear that as president he would do what's necessary to get the job done.
On what Trump's rise says about the two major political parties
I think they're sort of walking on eggshells right now, and it goes back to this question about disintermediation. The two-party system has very much been dependent on the ability of party bosses to control the message, to control the money, to control who the candidates are from the top down. And the party that best understands that that world is no longer there is best going to flourish in this new environment.
I think in some ways Donald Trump is a creation of the Republican establishment's unwillingness to accept this new world.
We wanted to see the power back in the hands of the people. And Donald Trump clearly doesn't care about that stuff.
On whether Trump has been a beneficiary of the tea party's rise
I've looked at the data of this, and it depends on how you define the tea party. I talk to tea partiers every day, and he definitely has support from some of them and ... some of his strongest opposition comes from the tea party.
I think it gets to this question of executive power. But I also think that he's drawing from a lot of Democrats, a lot of independents, a lot of people that have not been participating in the political process before.
To me, that's part of the interesting part of this new world. You know, can we actually enfranchise more voters, can we engage more people in this process?
And I should say, we should mention that the same dynamic is happening on the Democratic side. Bernie Sanders is in large part tapping into some of those same anxieties. He has, oddly enough, some of the same positions as Donald Trump on key issues ... on foreign policy, on immigration. Bernie Sanders has a history of being opposed to new immigration. It's sort of that closed-system view that our best days are behind us.
And, of course, Bernie Sanders is giving Hillary fits in New Hampshire and Iowa.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
uGQzkKUX297DOa1B
|
immigration
|
The Hill
| 11
|
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/293731-trump-at-immigration-crossroads
|
Trump at immigration crossroads
|
2016-08-30
|
Donald Trump Donald John TrumpKamala Harris calls for Twitter to suspend Trump account over whistleblower attacks Clinton jokes she 'never ' had to tell Obama not to 'extort foreign countries ' John Dean : 'There is enough evidence ' to impeach Trump MORE faces a tough decision with his immigration speech on Wednesday .
The GOP nominee is behind Democrat Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonClinton jokes she 'never ' had to tell Obama not to 'extort foreign countries ' Krystal Ball : Potential Ocasio-Cortez endorsement of Sanders would be ' a no-brainer ' Trump asked Australian leader to help look into Mueller probe 's origins : report MORE in polls and needs to claw back moderate Republican and independent voters who are threatening to either back one of Trump ’ s opponents or sit out the presidential contest entirely .
Trump also needs to win over Latino voters who have been cool to the hard-line immigration approach he trumpeted during his march through the Republican primary field .
At the same time , Trump can ’ t afford to lose his own base , which sees immigration as their candidate ’ s calling card .
During the GOP primary , Trump ’ s perceived truth-telling on immigration helped him batter former Florida Gov . Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio Marco Antonio RubioTo win the federal paid family leave debate , allow states to lead the way Rubio : The term 'impeachable offense ' has 'lost all meaning ' Top Democrat calls for new strategy to address China threats MORE ( R-Fla. ) with grassroots Republicans . While Trump ’ s core supporters are unlikely to abandon him at this stage , there have been warnings that a betrayal on immigration would be a game-changer .
“ I think this is a mistake , ” conservative pundit Ann Coulter , who just released a book supporting Trump , said last week on MSNBC ’ s “ Hardball . ”
“ This could be the shortest book tour ever if he ’ s really softening his position on immigration . ”
Trump didn ’ t appear in public on Monday , suggesting he and his team are working on the Wednesday speech that could be a pivotal point on the road to November .
While he ’ s been telegraphing a potential shift for more than a week , Trump ’ s public comments on immigration have muddied the waters .
In two recent interviews , Trump used both the words “ softening ” and “ hardening ” to describe his immigration evolution .
“ There could certainly be a softening because we ’ re not looking to hurt people , '' Trump said during a Fox News town hall on Wednesday night .
`` I do n't think it 's a softening . I 've had people say it 's a hardening , actually , ” he told CNN two days later .
Further complicating the picture , campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and vice presidential nominee Mike Pence Michael ( Mike ) Richard PenceEmbracing President Mike Pence might be GOP 's best play Pence advised Trump against releasing partial transcript of Ukraine call : report The five most serious charges in the whistleblower 's complaint MORE have said that Trump is not changing his position on immigration .
Most observers expect that Trump will not announce any major policy changes on Wednesday . Instead , they think he ’ ll use rhetoric to try to appeal to both his base and the new audiences he needs to bring under his tent .
A perceived shift on the issue could undercut Trump ’ s declaration that he ’ s different from typical politicians whose positions shift in the wind and potentially disappoint his biggest fans .
“ His base will not allow him to move from his previous position . His previous position was the one he staked out that distinguished himself from every Republican running , ” former Ted Cruz Rafael ( Ted ) Edward CruzHillicon Valley : Treasury sanctions Russians over 2018 election meddling | How Facebook fought back on FTC fine | WeWork calls off IPO | Elon Musk unveils Mars rocket Cambridge Analytica whistleblower 's book coming out next week O'Rourke : Trump should resign MORE spokesman Rick Tyler said Monday on MSNBC ’ s “ Morning Joe . ”
“ What he wants to do , of course , is expand his base and get beyond his base , but his base wont let him . He ’ s got a low ceiling and a high floor , and it ’ s not going to let him move much . ”
Trump is giving the speech in Arizona , a reliably Republican state in presidential elections that polls suggest could be a toss-up in this year ’ s fight . It ’ s also the home to vocal Trump supporter Sheriff Joe Arpaio , an immigration hardliner .
Alfonso Aguilar , a former George W. Bush administration official who is now the president of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles , said one specific immigration policy area where Trump could shift is with his stance on the “ touch back . ”
This is an immigration policy where those in America illegally would leave the country before returning and squaring up with the government in exchange for legal status .
Aguilar noted that within the early weeks of Trump ’ s campaign , he told CNN that he would allow “ good ” undocumented immigrants back into the country with an “ expedited ” path to legal status — the “ touch back ” without the label .
“ From the very beginning , he said the good people would return , he was open to the idea of people without a criminal record living in the United States , ” Aguilar said .
“ He could explain it as an adjustment of what he ’ s proposed , not a change . It ’ s not a flip flop ... it all depends on how he explains it . ”
Conway , however , has already sworn off a touch back , so it ’ s unclear whether that policy is still on the table .
Carl Paladino , Trump ’ s New York campaign co-chair , told ███ that making clear his policy on the touch back will help protect him from attempts by the media to take his words out of context .
“ His real goal is to straighten out the press , because the press has been interpreting his immigration policy , which is fairly clear , in many different ways , and I think that ’ s unfair , ” he said .
“ What he wants to do is clean it up and make sure he has crossed his t ’ s and dotted his i ’ s so he ’ s not taken out of context or his words are misused . ”
Aguilar and Paladino both believe the speech could resonate with Hispanic voters .
The former believes that while Trump ’ s language has been bombastic , emphasizing the touch back could help him improve with those voters . He added that Trump sits just a few percentage points behind Mitt Romney ’ s 27 percent share of this Hispanic electorate with “ no outreach ” to the community .
Aguilar also thinks that Trump can “ turn the tables ” on Clinton by playing up her past support of a border fence and controversial 2013 comments about sending child migrants back .
Paladino doesn ’ t believe polls showing Trump winning a small fraction of the Hispanic vote , and he believes that a tough stance on the border can only help Trump with Hispanic voters . He noted that a sizable portion have had experience immigrating legally , either themselves or through family members .
“ It ’ s hard for me to believe that just because they are of Hispanic heritage that they would feel that it ’ s alright for illegal immigrants to pour across our border , ” he said .
But even if the Trump campaign emphasizes a touch back , it ’ s unclear whether Hispanic voters , or moderates who would appreciate a tack to the center , would be swayed .
“ If you are a moderate Republican or an independent voter , how is it possible you take him seriously if he tries to moderate when literally the first words out of his mouth were strident statements about illegal immigrants in this country ? ” said GOP strategist Reed Galen .
“ If there ’ s been a constant in his campaign , immigration has been it . So to change on it , no one who he needs to vote for him will believe it . ”
|
Donald Trump Donald John TrumpKamala Harris calls for Twitter to suspend Trump account over whistleblower attacks Clinton jokes she 'never' had to tell Obama not to 'extort foreign countries' John Dean: 'There is enough evidence' to impeach Trump MORE faces a tough decision with his immigration speech on Wednesday.
The GOP nominee is behind Democrat Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonClinton jokes she 'never' had to tell Obama not to 'extort foreign countries' Krystal Ball: Potential Ocasio-Cortez endorsement of Sanders would be 'a no-brainer' Trump asked Australian leader to help look into Mueller probe's origins: report MORE in polls and needs to claw back moderate Republican and independent voters who are threatening to either back one of Trump’s opponents or sit out the presidential contest entirely.
ADVERTISEMENT
Trump also needs to win over Latino voters who have been cool to the hard-line immigration approach he trumpeted during his march through the Republican primary field.
At the same time, Trump can’t afford to lose his own base, which sees immigration as their candidate’s calling card.
During the GOP primary, Trump’s perceived truth-telling on immigration helped him batter former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio Marco Antonio RubioTo win the federal paid family leave debate, allow states to lead the way Rubio: The term 'impeachable offense' has 'lost all meaning' Top Democrat calls for new strategy to address China threats MORE (R-Fla.) with grassroots Republicans. While Trump’s core supporters are unlikely to abandon him at this stage, there have been warnings that a betrayal on immigration would be a game-changer.
“I think this is a mistake,” conservative pundit Ann Coulter, who just released a book supporting Trump, said last week on MSNBC’s “Hardball.”
“This could be the shortest book tour ever if he’s really softening his position on immigration.”
Trump didn’t appear in public on Monday, suggesting he and his team are working on the Wednesday speech that could be a pivotal point on the road to November.
While he’s been telegraphing a potential shift for more than a week, Trump’s public comments on immigration have muddied the waters.
In two recent interviews, Trump used both the words “softening” and “hardening” to describe his immigration evolution.
“There could certainly be a softening because we’re not looking to hurt people," Trump said during a Fox News town hall on Wednesday night.
"I don't think it's a softening. I've had people say it's a hardening, actually,” he told CNN two days later.
Further complicating the picture, campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and vice presidential nominee Mike Pence Michael (Mike) Richard PenceEmbracing President Mike Pence might be GOP's best play Pence advised Trump against releasing partial transcript of Ukraine call: report The five most serious charges in the whistleblower's complaint MORE have said that Trump is not changing his position on immigration.
Most observers expect that Trump will not announce any major policy changes on Wednesday. Instead, they think he’ll use rhetoric to try to appeal to both his base and the new audiences he needs to bring under his tent.
A perceived shift on the issue could undercut Trump’s declaration that he’s different from typical politicians whose positions shift in the wind and potentially disappoint his biggest fans.
“His base will not allow him to move from his previous position. His previous position was the one he staked out that distinguished himself from every Republican running,” former Ted Cruz Rafael (Ted) Edward CruzHillicon Valley: Treasury sanctions Russians over 2018 election meddling | How Facebook fought back on FTC fine | WeWork calls off IPO | Elon Musk unveils Mars rocket Cambridge Analytica whistleblower's book coming out next week O'Rourke: Trump should resign MORE spokesman Rick Tyler said Monday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“What he wants to do, of course, is expand his base and get beyond his base, but his base wont let him. He’s got a low ceiling and a high floor, and it’s not going to let him move much.”
Trump is giving the speech in Arizona, a reliably Republican state in presidential elections that polls suggest could be a toss-up in this year’s fight. It’s also the home to vocal Trump supporter Sheriff Joe Arpaio, an immigration hardliner.
Alfonso Aguilar, a former George W. Bush administration official who is now the president of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, said one specific immigration policy area where Trump could shift is with his stance on the “touch back.”
This is an immigration policy where those in America illegally would leave the country before returning and squaring up with the government in exchange for legal status.
Aguilar noted that within the early weeks of Trump’s campaign, he told CNN that he would allow “good” undocumented immigrants back into the country with an “expedited” path to legal status — the “touch back” without the label.
“From the very beginning, he said the good people would return, he was open to the idea of people without a criminal record living in the United States,” Aguilar said.
“He could explain it as an adjustment of what he’s proposed, not a change. It’s not a flip flop ... it all depends on how he explains it.”
Conway, however, has already sworn off a touch back, so it’s unclear whether that policy is still on the table.
Carl Paladino, Trump’s New York campaign co-chair, told The Hill that making clear his policy on the touch back will help protect him from attempts by the media to take his words out of context.
“His real goal is to straighten out the press, because the press has been interpreting his immigration policy, which is fairly clear, in many different ways, and I think that’s unfair,” he said.
“What he wants to do is clean it up and make sure he has crossed his t’s and dotted his i’s so he’s not taken out of context or his words are misused.”
Aguilar and Paladino both believe the speech could resonate with Hispanic voters.
The former believes that while Trump’s language has been bombastic, emphasizing the touch back could help him improve with those voters. He added that Trump sits just a few percentage points behind Mitt Romney’s 27 percent share of this Hispanic electorate with “no outreach” to the community.
Aguilar also thinks that Trump can “turn the tables” on Clinton by playing up her past support of a border fence and controversial 2013 comments about sending child migrants back.
Paladino doesn’t believe polls showing Trump winning a small fraction of the Hispanic vote, and he believes that a tough stance on the border can only help Trump with Hispanic voters. He noted that a sizable portion have had experience immigrating legally, either themselves or through family members.
“It’s hard for me to believe that just because they are of Hispanic heritage that they would feel that it’s alright for illegal immigrants to pour across our border,” he said.
But even if the Trump campaign emphasizes a touch back, it’s unclear whether Hispanic voters, or moderates who would appreciate a tack to the center, would be swayed.
“If you are a moderate Republican or an independent voter, how is it possible you take him seriously if he tries to moderate when literally the first words out of his mouth were strident statements about illegal immigrants in this country?” said GOP strategist Reed Galen.
“If there’s been a constant in his campaign, immigration has been it. So to change on it, no one who he needs to vote for him will believe it.”
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
JzybQyv2QPSIM71l
|
|
healthcare
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/22/obamacare-turns-three-separating-rhetoric-from-reality/
|
ObamaCare turns three -- a checkup on the rhetoric vs. the reality
|
2013-03-22
|
Paul Howard
|
Saturday marks ObamaCare ’ s third anniversary , and President Obama and Democrats across the country will surely celebrate its greatest achievement to date : survival . The health care law narrowly survived a Supreme Court challenge , repeated attempts by House Republicans to repeal it and , with President Obama ’ s reelection , seems to be set for implementation next year .
But survival is a pretty low bar for the law , and far from the lofty claims made on its behalf .
In 2009 , President Obama said that “ it ’ s important for us to make sure that 46 million people who don ’ t have health insurance get it . And I think it ’ s important for us to bend the curve , separate and apart from coverage issues , just because the system we have right now is unsustainable and hugely inefficient and uncompetitive . ”
The Obama administration ’ s claim that the law would rein in spending undoubtedly persuaded wavering Congressional Democrats to push it across the finish line .
In a new report from the Manhattan Institute , Rhetoric and Reality , my colleague Yevgeniy Feyman and I try to summarize the best evidence to date on the impact that the law is having on health care costs today – and whether or not it is likely to contain costs in the future .
Based on the best currently available data , we project that ObamaCare will increase , not decrease , U.S. health care spending .
Certainly , the near term trends aren ’ t favorable for the law . Since the passage of the law , household premiums for private insurance have increased by 11.3 percent , outpacing even the growth of medical inflation ( 6.8 percent ) . Last year , Congressional analysts also projected that employer-based family coverage will cost $ 20,000 by 2016 , an increase of 27 percent over 2012 rates . Looking a little further ahead , premiums are expected to rise steadily through 2021 , except for a brief dip in 2014 .
( The “ dip ” kicks in when ObamaCare ’ s exchange subsidies begin , transferring costs from individuals and families to taxpayers . But shifting costs is not the same thing as containing costs . )
In fact , a recent survey of insurance companies by the American Action Forum , a think tank , found that market reforms included in ObamaCare will spike health insurance premiums , particularly for younger and healthier people . ObamaCare requires insurers to sell richer benefit packages , but the main cost increases come from new rules like rating bands , that limit the discounts insurers can offer to younger policyholders compared to older ones , and prohibit premium variations based on gender and health status .
ObamaCare also includes new taxes on everything from insurance companies to prescription drugs , costs likely to be passed along to families and small businesses shopping for coverage .
ObamaCare didn ’ t invent America ’ s health care woes , and shouldn ’ t be blamed for the ones we already have . The U.S. already spends over $ 2 trillion on health care , approaching 18 percent of U.S. GDP . And health care costs were rising much faster than income or GDP growth for decades before ObamaCare came along .
But the point of the law was to fix the system – not add to its burdens . The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ( CMS ) predicts that the law will add about $ 500 billion to U.S. spending between 2012 and 2021 .
To be fair , ObamaCare does contain several small pilot projects , all of them well meaning , designed to reform the supply or delivery of health care . But existing pilot programs thus far have had mixed or disappointing results . And some projects , like the widespread implementation of electronic health records , seem to have increased costs in some cases , by making it easier for providers to bill for additional services .
Other experiments , like Medicare ’ s Accountable Care Organization ( ACO ) program , may also be cost increasing , by encouraging hospital consolidation that allows them to increase prices .
One area where ObamaCare devotes far too little attention is reforming the demand for health care services . For all of our talk about the crushing cost of American health care , on average , consumers only spend about 11 cents out of pocket for health care – the fifth lowest average among OECD countries . And research suggests that when out of pocket spending is lower , health care spending increases because consumers are only paying a tiny fraction of the total bill .
By 2021 , ObamaCare will push U.S. out of pocket spending even lower than it is today , to just over 9 percent . This may accelerate price increases by insulating the newly insured largely from the costs of the care they consume .
Defenders of the law like to point out that CBO scores the law as reducing the deficit . But this is only because the law brings in more revenues ( through taxes and penalties ) than it spends over a ten year period . And recently , health care cost growth has slowed somewhat . But there is no reason to attribute the slowdown to ObamaCare , since its main provisions haven ’ t even kicked in . And lower Medicare spending is largely ( 75 percent ) attributable to lower drug spending in Medicare ’ s Part D benefit , which started in 2006 .
On net , we found evidence that ObamaCare will do very little to slow U.S. health care spending , and may actually increase it .
While the Congressional debate has focused on repealing ObamaCare , a more politically palatable option may be reforming it by focusing on demand side reforms – like moving most non-poor Americans into higher deductible health plans paired with savings accounts and lowering subsidies on the exchanges ( currently subsidies extend to families making up to $ 94,000 annually ) to focus on low-income families , and building effective systems that allow consumers to easily compare the price and quality of health care options .
An anniversary is supposed to be the time for celebration . For ObamaCare , its third anniversary signifies how little the law has accomplished , and the enormous health care challenges still facing the country .
|
Saturday marks ObamaCare’s third anniversary, and President Obama and Democrats across the country will surely celebrate its greatest achievement to date: survival. The health care law narrowly survived a Supreme Court challenge, repeated attempts by House Republicans to repeal it and, with President Obama’s reelection, seems to be set for implementation next year.
But survival is a pretty low bar for the law, and far from the lofty claims made on its behalf.
In 2009, President Obama said that “it’s important for us to make sure that 46 million people who don’t have health insurance get it. And I think it’s important for us to bend the curve, separate and apart from coverage issues, just because the system we have right now is unsustainable and hugely inefficient and uncompetitive.”
[pullquote]
The Obama administration’s claim that the law would rein in spending undoubtedly persuaded wavering Congressional Democrats to push it across the finish line.
In a new report from the Manhattan Institute, Rhetoric and Reality, my colleague Yevgeniy Feyman and I try to summarize the best evidence to date on the impact that the law is having on health care costs today – and whether or not it is likely to contain costs in the future.
Based on the best currently available data, we project that ObamaCare will increase, not decrease, U.S. health care spending.
Certainly, the near term trends aren’t favorable for the law. Since the passage of the law, household premiums for private insurance have increased by 11.3 percent, outpacing even the growth of medical inflation (6.8 percent). Last year, Congressional analysts also projected that employer-based family coverage will cost $20,000 by 2016, an increase of 27 percent over 2012 rates. Looking a little further ahead, premiums are expected to rise steadily through 2021, except for a brief dip in 2014.
(The “dip” kicks in when ObamaCare’s exchange subsidies begin, transferring costs from individuals and families to taxpayers. But shifting costs is not the same thing as containing costs.)
In fact, a recent survey of insurance companies by the American Action Forum, a think tank, found that market reforms included in ObamaCare will spike health insurance premiums, particularly for younger and healthier people. ObamaCare requires insurers to sell richer benefit packages, but the main cost increases come from new rules like rating bands, that limit the discounts insurers can offer to younger policyholders compared to older ones, and prohibit premium variations based on gender and health status.
ObamaCare also includes new taxes on everything from insurance companies to prescription drugs, costs likely to be passed along to families and small businesses shopping for coverage.
ObamaCare didn’t invent America’s health care woes, and shouldn’t be blamed for the ones we already have. The U.S. already spends over $2 trillion on health care, approaching 18 percent of U.S. GDP. And health care costs were rising much faster than income or GDP growth for decades before ObamaCare came along.
But the point of the law was to fix the system – not add to its burdens. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) predicts that the law will add about $500 billion to U.S. spending between 2012 and 2021.
To be fair, ObamaCare does contain several small pilot projects, all of them well meaning, designed to reform the supply or delivery of health care. But existing pilot programs thus far have had mixed or disappointing results. And some projects, like the widespread implementation of electronic health records, seem to have increased costs in some cases, by making it easier for providers to bill for additional services.
Other experiments, like Medicare’s Accountable Care Organization (ACO) program, may also be cost increasing, by encouraging hospital consolidation that allows them to increase prices.
One area where ObamaCare devotes far too little attention is reforming the demand for health care services. For all of our talk about the crushing cost of American health care, on average, consumers only spend about 11 cents out of pocket for health care – the fifth lowest average among OECD countries. And research suggests that when out of pocket spending is lower, health care spending increases because consumers are only paying a tiny fraction of the total bill.
By 2021, ObamaCare will push U.S. out of pocket spending even lower than it is today, to just over 9 percent. This may accelerate price increases by insulating the newly insured largely from the costs of the care they consume.
Defenders of the law like to point out that CBO scores the law as reducing the deficit. But this is only because the law brings in more revenues (through taxes and penalties) than it spends over a ten year period. And recently, health care cost growth has slowed somewhat. But there is no reason to attribute the slowdown to ObamaCare, since its main provisions haven’t even kicked in. And lower Medicare spending is largely (75 percent) attributable to lower drug spending in Medicare’s Part D benefit, which started in 2006.
On net, we found evidence that ObamaCare will do very little to slow U.S. health care spending, and may actually increase it.
While the Congressional debate has focused on repealing ObamaCare, a more politically palatable option may be reforming it by focusing on demand side reforms – like moving most non-poor Americans into higher deductible health plans paired with savings accounts and lowering subsidies on the exchanges (currently subsidies extend to families making up to $94,000 annually) to focus on low-income families, and building effective systems that allow consumers to easily compare the price and quality of health care options.
An anniversary is supposed to be the time for celebration. For ObamaCare, its third anniversary signifies how little the law has accomplished, and the enormous health care challenges still facing the country.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
NYQgksptDN84ufVP
|
us_senate
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/483544-poll-susan-collins-in-statistical-tie-with-democratic-challenger
|
Susan Collins in statistical tie with Democratic challenger: poll
|
2020-02-18
|
Forty-two percent of respondents in a Colby College poll said they would vote for Collins , compared to 43 percent who said they would support Sara Gideon , the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives and the front-runner for the Democratic nomination .
`` The results indicate this could be the kind of race Sen. Collins has not had to deal with before , '' Dan Shea , a Colby College professor of government and the lead researcher on the poll , said in a statement while caveating that `` there ’ s a long way to go . ''
The poll , which has a 3 percentage-point margin of error , included surveys with 1,008 registered Maine voters , 70 percent of which were conducted online , that took place between Feb. 10 and Feb. 13 .
That 's approximately a week after the Senate ended the months-long impeachment saga when it voted largely along party lines to acquit Trump of abuse of power in his actions toward Ukraine and obstruction of Congress in subsequent investigations .
Collins voted to acquit Trump , arguing that the House had failed to make the case that his actions warranted removal from office months before the 2020 election .
`` The president has been impeached . That 's a pretty big lesson . I 'm voting to acquit because I do not believe that the behavior alleged reaches the high bar in the Constitution for overturning an election and removing a duly elected president , '' Collins said .
Pressed on why she thought Trump had learned something , Collins added , `` He was impeached . And there has been criticism by both Republican and Democratic senators of his call . I believe that he will be much more cautious in the future . '' Collins later walked that back , telling Fox News on Wednesday after the impeachment votes that her hope that Trump had learned a lesson was `` more aspirational on my part . ''
She told CBS News on the day that she announced her decision to acquit Trump that she believed he had learned from the impeachment fight .
According to the Colby College poll , 30 percent of respondents said Mainers should be proud of Collins 's role in the impeachment proceedings , compared to 37 percent who said they should be disappointed . Another 31 percent believed state residents should have mixed feelings .
But 36 percent of respondents said Collins 's votes would make them more likely to vote against her , compared to 17 percent who said the vote would make them more likely to support Collins . Forty-six percent indicated it likely would n't change their views on her candidacy .
Election handicappers , including the Cook Political Report , rate her race as a toss-up .
With a current 53-47 Republican majority , Democrats would need to win back a net of four Senate seats to capture an outright majority in the Senate . If they win back a net of three seats , that would result in a 50-50 tie , giving tiebreaker status to whichever party wins the White House .
Collins , according to that poll , had a 42 percent approval rating among Mainers compared to a 52 percent disapproval rating .
The Colby College poll found Collins to have a 42 percent favorable rating but a 54 percent unfavorable rating . Fifty-seven percent of independents view her unfavorably , according to the poll , while 39 percent view her favorably .
|
Forty-two percent of respondents in a Colby College poll said they would vote for Collins, compared to 43 percent who said they would support Sara Gideon, the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives and the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.
"The results indicate this could be the kind of race Sen. Collins has not had to deal with before," Dan Shea, a Colby College professor of government and the lead researcher on the poll, said in a statement while caveating that "there’s a long way to go."
The poll, which has a 3 percentage-point margin of error, included surveys with 1,008 registered Maine voters, 70 percent of which were conducted online, that took place between Feb. 10 and Feb. 13.
That's approximately a week after the Senate ended the months-long impeachment saga when it voted largely along party lines to acquit Trump of abuse of power in his actions toward Ukraine and obstruction of Congress in subsequent investigations.
Collins voted to acquit Trump, arguing that the House had failed to make the case that his actions warranted removal from office months before the 2020 election.
"The president has been impeached. That's a pretty big lesson. I'm voting to acquit because I do not believe that the behavior alleged reaches the high bar in the Constitution for overturning an election and removing a duly elected president," Collins said.
Pressed on why she thought Trump had learned something, Collins added, "He was impeached. And there has been criticism by both Republican and Democratic senators of his call. I believe that he will be much more cautious in the future." Collins later walked that back, telling Fox News on Wednesday after the impeachment votes that her hope that Trump had learned a lesson was "more aspirational on my part."
She told CBS News on the day that she announced her decision to acquit Trump that she believed he had learned from the impeachment fight.
According to the Colby College poll, 30 percent of respondents said Mainers should be proud of Collins's role in the impeachment proceedings, compared to 37 percent who said they should be disappointed. Another 31 percent believed state residents should have mixed feelings.
But 36 percent of respondents said Collins's votes would make them more likely to vote against her, compared to 17 percent who said the vote would make them more likely to support Collins. Forty-six percent indicated it likely wouldn't change their views on her candidacy.
Election handicappers, including the Cook Political Report, rate her race as a toss-up.
With a current 53-47 Republican majority, Democrats would need to win back a net of four Senate seats to capture an outright majority in the Senate. If they win back a net of three seats, that would result in a 50-50 tie, giving tiebreaker status to whichever party wins the White House.
Collins, according to that poll, had a 42 percent approval rating among Mainers compared to a 52 percent disapproval rating.
The Colby College poll found Collins to have a 42 percent favorable rating but a 54 percent unfavorable rating. Fifty-seven percent of independents view her unfavorably, according to the poll, while 39 percent view her favorably.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
VhyIvM0pH4EFqW4D
|
|
environment
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/1015/Landmark-case-Supreme-Court-to-review-EPA-regulation-of-greenhouse-gases
|
Landmark case? Supreme Court to review EPA regulation of greenhouse gases
|
2013-10-15
|
Warren Richey
|
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine whether the Environmental Protection Agency exceeded its authority when it sought to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act .
In a potential landmark case with substantial implications for the environmental health of the country as well as the health of the US economy , the high court said it would take up six of nine separate petitions filed with the court seeking review of the agency ’ s actions .
More than 70 business groups and public policy organizations , plus 13 states , filed petitions asking the high court to review various aspects of the EPA ’ s new regulations .
Some argued that the EPA ’ s broad reading of the Clean Air Act to allow the agency to enact and enforce a range of regulations of carbon dioxide usurped power reserved exclusively to Congress .
But the high court declined to hear petitions challenging the EPA ’ s so-called endangerment finding – that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare . That finding triggered EPA authority to move forward with greenhouse gas regulations .
In denying three petitions but granting six others , the high court signaled that it will focus on issues further down the regulatory process .
Specifically , the court agreed to answer a single question : “ Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases , ” the justices said in an order Tuesday .
Stationary sources include power plants , refineries , petrochemical plants , and heavy industry facilities .
Regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases is a high priority of the Obama administration .
Most environmental experts maintain that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to global warming , including sea rise increases and more violent weather patterns . Other scientists say the data are unclear , and they question the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and fluctuations in atmospheric temperatures .
Industry groups have warned that EPA regulations would cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs , stalling the already-sluggish economic recovery . They say such profound policy decisions should be debated and approved by Congress rather than imposed by a regulatory agency .
Lawyers for the US Chamber of Commerce said in their brief the new regulations are “ the costliest , farthest reaching , and most intrusive regulatory apparatus in the history of the American administrative state . ”
The regulations , they said , could eventually “ touch practically every aspect of every industry across the entire economy . ”
A range of environmental groups and 17 states filed briefs supporting the EPA action and urging the Supreme Court to decline to hear any of the appeals .
Lawyers for the environmental groups argued in their briefs that the EPA ’ s regulation of stationary sources of greenhouse gases had gone well and that warnings about dire consequences for the nation are unfounded .
“ No petitioner can credibly contend that the impact of greenhouse gas regulation as actually implemented is unreasonable or oppressive , ” they said . “ Permitting is proceeding at a reasonable pace across the country and across industrial sectors . ”
In the first two years , they said , fewer than 200 large emitters – mostly electric power generators and natural gas processing plants – applied for permits . The process includes consideration of cost and is subject to judicial review , they said .
Critics of the EPA regulatory moves disagree . EPA officials , they argue , usurped the role of Congress to substantially expand the federal agency ’ s power to fight global warming .
The case went to the federal appeals court in Washington , D.C. , which last year rejected industry complaints and upheld the EPA ’ s actions .
The three-judge panel cited a 2007 US Supreme Court decision , Massachusetts v. EPA , that held that greenhouse gases are a form of air pollution that could be covered by the Clean Air Act .
In the 5-to-4 decision , the high court said the agency had a duty to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act if the EPA determined that greenhouse gases and related global warming pose a threat to public health and welfare .
The issue arose during the Bush administration , when the EPA refused to broaden enforcement of the Clean Air Act to include greenhouse gases .
In contrast , the EPA under President Obama has welcomed the opportunity to use the Clean Air Act to fight climate change . And the federal appeals court endorsed the Obama administration ’ s expansive application of the antipollution law .
“ To be sure , the stakes here are high . The underlying policy questions and the outcome of this case are undoubtedly matters of exceptional importance , ” the appeals court said .
The judges went on to note that the legal dispute involved a straightforward reading of the clean air statute and application of binding Supreme Court precedent to that statute .
Prior to appealing to the Supreme Court , lawyers for the industry groups asked the full appeals court to take up the case . It declined .
In a dissent from the appeals court decision not to rehear the case , Judge Brett Kavanaugh said regardless of how the case is decided , it would have “ massive real-world consequences . ”
Judge Kavanaugh said the EPA ’ s broad interpretation of “ air pollutant ” allowed it to expand the reach of federal regulation to include greenhouse gases . And that would expand the reach of the agency ’ s regulations .
But the expansion raised a problem within the statutory framework . Congress set thresholds for harmful pollutants that would require permits – 250 million tons per year for some facilities and 100 million tons for others .
The limits were set for six specifically identified pollutants – carbon monoxide , lead , nitrogen dioxide , ozone , particle pollution , and sulfur dioxide .
High concentrations of these pollutants in the air are considered capable of causing an immediate threat to human health . The Clean Air Act is aimed at addressing that threat .
In contrast , the threat from greenhouse gases is considered more remote . Greenhouse gases – such as carbon dioxide , methane , nitrous oxide , and hydrofluorocarbons – do not themselves pose an immediate threat to human health .
But the EPA is claiming broad regulatory power to address those wider threats to public welfare said to be posed by greenhouse gases and global warming .
In its endangerment finding , the EPA concluded that unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and the welfare of current and future generations . Global warming , the agency concluded , would increase heat-related deaths and respiratory illnesses , boost the risks to health from violent hurricanes and other extreme weather events , and increase the prevalence of food and waterborne diseases .
Climate change could have adverse impacts on US food production , endanger forestry , increase the risk of extreme flooding and drought , increase the risk of storm surge and flooding related to sea level increases , and pose negative consequences for ecosystems and wildlife worldwide .
Critics of the EPA ’ s push to regulate greenhouse gases as if they are another variety of toxic pollutants argue that the problem is that greenhouse gases – like carbon dioxide and methane – are emitted in much larger quantities by a much larger universe of emitters .
Millions of industrial , residential , and commercial sources exceed existing regulatory levels .
If the original statutory thresholds for air pollution were applied to greenhouse gas emissions , the EPA would be unable to process all the permit applications . In addition to large industrial facilities , the new regulations could potentially also sweep in tens of thousands of lesser emitters including apartment buildings , large homes , schools , and hospitals , critics say .
Under established Clean Air Act thresholds , the number of permits would jump from 14,700 to 6.1 million . The new rules would require $ 22.5 billion in paperwork costs alone and additional billions in compliance costs , these critics say .
Recognizing this , the EPA rewrote the threshold for greenhouse gases . Rather than 250 tons , the agency set the limit at 100,000 tons . The action is unusual because the 250-ton restriction was written into the statute by Congress .
“ This is a very strange way to interpret a statute , ” Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent .
“ When an agency is faced with two initially plausible readings of a statutory term , but it turns out that one reading would cause absurd results , I am aware of no precedent that suggests the agency can still choose the absurd reading and then start rewriting other perfectly clear portions of the statute to try to make it all work out . ”
The judge added : “ Allowing agencies to exercise that kind of statutory re-writing authority could significantly enhance the Executive Branch ’ s power at the expense of Congress ’ s and thereby alter the relative balance of powers in the administrative process . ”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
“ Although it found some ‘ uncertainties ’ in the scientific data , the EPA determined that the body of scientific evidence compellingly supports the finding that greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and public welfare by driving global climate change , ” US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote in his brief urging the court not to take up the case .
The appeals court decision , he said , was correct and reflected an accurate reading of the underlying statute and of the high court ’ s 2007 decision in the earlier Clean Air Act case .
|
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine whether the Environmental Protection Agency exceeded its authority when it sought to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
In a potential landmark case with substantial implications for the environmental health of the country as well as the health of the US economy, the high court said it would take up six of nine separate petitions filed with the court seeking review of the agency’s actions.
More than 70 business groups and public policy organizations, plus 13 states, filed petitions asking the high court to review various aspects of the EPA’s new regulations.
Some argued that the EPA’s broad reading of the Clean Air Act to allow the agency to enact and enforce a range of regulations of carbon dioxide usurped power reserved exclusively to Congress.
But the high court declined to hear petitions challenging the EPA’s so-called endangerment finding – that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. That finding triggered EPA authority to move forward with greenhouse gas regulations.
In denying three petitions but granting six others, the high court signaled that it will focus on issues further down the regulatory process.
Specifically, the court agreed to answer a single question: “Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases,” the justices said in an order Tuesday.
Stationary sources include power plants, refineries, petrochemical plants, and heavy industry facilities.
Regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases is a high priority of the Obama administration.
Most environmental experts maintain that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to global warming, including sea rise increases and more violent weather patterns. Other scientists say the data are unclear, and they question the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and fluctuations in atmospheric temperatures.
Industry groups have warned that EPA regulations would cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs, stalling the already-sluggish economic recovery. They say such profound policy decisions should be debated and approved by Congress rather than imposed by a regulatory agency.
Lawyers for the US Chamber of Commerce said in their brief the new regulations are “the costliest, farthest reaching, and most intrusive regulatory apparatus in the history of the American administrative state.”
The regulations, they said, could eventually “touch practically every aspect of every industry across the entire economy.”
A range of environmental groups and 17 states filed briefs supporting the EPA action and urging the Supreme Court to decline to hear any of the appeals.
Lawyers for the environmental groups argued in their briefs that the EPA’s regulation of stationary sources of greenhouse gases had gone well and that warnings about dire consequences for the nation are unfounded.
“No petitioner can credibly contend that the impact of greenhouse gas regulation as actually implemented is unreasonable or oppressive,” they said. “Permitting is proceeding at a reasonable pace across the country and across industrial sectors.”
In the first two years, they said, fewer than 200 large emitters – mostly electric power generators and natural gas processing plants – applied for permits. The process includes consideration of cost and is subject to judicial review, they said.
Critics of the EPA regulatory moves disagree. EPA officials, they argue, usurped the role of Congress to substantially expand the federal agency’s power to fight global warming.
The case went to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., which last year rejected industry complaints and upheld the EPA’s actions.
The three-judge panel cited a 2007 US Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, that held that greenhouse gases are a form of air pollution that could be covered by the Clean Air Act.
In the 5-to-4 decision, the high court said the agency had a duty to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act if the EPA determined that greenhouse gases and related global warming pose a threat to public health and welfare.
The issue arose during the Bush administration, when the EPA refused to broaden enforcement of the Clean Air Act to include greenhouse gases.
In contrast, the EPA under President Obama has welcomed the opportunity to use the Clean Air Act to fight climate change. And the federal appeals court endorsed the Obama administration’s expansive application of the antipollution law.
“To be sure, the stakes here are high. The underlying policy questions and the outcome of this case are undoubtedly matters of exceptional importance,” the appeals court said.
The judges went on to note that the legal dispute involved a straightforward reading of the clean air statute and application of binding Supreme Court precedent to that statute.
Prior to appealing to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the industry groups asked the full appeals court to take up the case. It declined.
In a dissent from the appeals court decision not to rehear the case, Judge Brett Kavanaugh said regardless of how the case is decided, it would have “massive real-world consequences.”
Judge Kavanaugh said the EPA’s broad interpretation of “air pollutant” allowed it to expand the reach of federal regulation to include greenhouse gases. And that would expand the reach of the agency’s regulations.
But the expansion raised a problem within the statutory framework. Congress set thresholds for harmful pollutants that would require permits – 250 million tons per year for some facilities and 100 million tons for others.
The limits were set for six specifically identified pollutants – carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle pollution, and sulfur dioxide.
High concentrations of these pollutants in the air are considered capable of causing an immediate threat to human health. The Clean Air Act is aimed at addressing that threat.
In contrast, the threat from greenhouse gases is considered more remote. Greenhouse gases – such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons – do not themselves pose an immediate threat to human health.
But the EPA is claiming broad regulatory power to address those wider threats to public welfare said to be posed by greenhouse gases and global warming.
In its endangerment finding, the EPA concluded that unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and the welfare of current and future generations. Global warming, the agency concluded, would increase heat-related deaths and respiratory illnesses, boost the risks to health from violent hurricanes and other extreme weather events, and increase the prevalence of food and waterborne diseases.
Climate change could have adverse impacts on US food production, endanger forestry, increase the risk of extreme flooding and drought, increase the risk of storm surge and flooding related to sea level increases, and pose negative consequences for ecosystems and wildlife worldwide.
Critics of the EPA’s push to regulate greenhouse gases as if they are another variety of toxic pollutants argue that the problem is that greenhouse gases – like carbon dioxide and methane – are emitted in much larger quantities by a much larger universe of emitters.
Millions of industrial, residential, and commercial sources exceed existing regulatory levels.
If the original statutory thresholds for air pollution were applied to greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA would be unable to process all the permit applications. In addition to large industrial facilities, the new regulations could potentially also sweep in tens of thousands of lesser emitters including apartment buildings, large homes, schools, and hospitals, critics say.
Under established Clean Air Act thresholds, the number of permits would jump from 14,700 to 6.1 million. The new rules would require $22.5 billion in paperwork costs alone and additional billions in compliance costs, these critics say.
Recognizing this, the EPA rewrote the threshold for greenhouse gases. Rather than 250 tons, the agency set the limit at 100,000 tons. The action is unusual because the 250-ton restriction was written into the statute by Congress.
“This is a very strange way to interpret a statute,” Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent.
“When an agency is faced with two initially plausible readings of a statutory term, but it turns out that one reading would cause absurd results, I am aware of no precedent that suggests the agency can still choose the absurd reading and then start rewriting other perfectly clear portions of the statute to try to make it all work out.”
The judge added: “Allowing agencies to exercise that kind of statutory re-writing authority could significantly enhance the Executive Branch’s power at the expense of Congress’s and thereby alter the relative balance of powers in the administrative process.”
The Obama administration defends the EPA rules.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
“Although it found some ‘uncertainties’ in the scientific data, the EPA determined that the body of scientific evidence compellingly supports the finding that greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and public welfare by driving global climate change,” US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote in his brief urging the court not to take up the case.
The appeals court decision, he said, was correct and reflected an accurate reading of the underlying statute and of the high court’s 2007 decision in the earlier Clean Air Act case.
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
6718Z4V8PlWaOpTX
|
palestine
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-protests.html
|
Uneasy Calm Falls Over Gaza After Israel Kills Scores at Protests
|
2018-05-15
|
Ambassador Mansour Ayyad Al-Otaibi also criticized the Security Council for not agreeing to Kuwait ’ s request for an independent investigation of the Gaza deaths , adding that his country might instead seek an investigation by the United Nations Human Rights Office . Diplomats said that Kuwait had circulated a statement calling for an independent inquiry , which would require unanimous approval , but the United States had disagreed .
Defending Israel , Ambassador Nikki R. Haley of the United States denounced what she called the double standard that other nations applied to Israel . “ Who among us would accept this type of activity on your border ? ” she asked . No country , she said , acted “ with more restraint than Israel . ”
She said that Hamas had been to blame for inciting protesters to storm the fence , and insisted that there had been no connection between the violence and celebrations on Monday for the opening of the American embassy . President Trump ’ s recognition of the Israeli position that Jerusalem is Israel ’ s capital , she said , “ makes peace more achievable , not less . ”
Addressing the council , Nickolay Mladenov , the U.N. special coordinator for Middle East peace , found fault with both sides .
“ Israel has a responsibility to calibrate its use of force , to not use lethal force , except as a last resort , under imminent threat of death or serious injury , ” he said . He added that Hamas “ must not use the protests as cover to attempt to place bombs at the fence and create provocations ; its operatives must not hide among the demonstrators and risk the lives of civilians . ”
Thousands of Palestinian refugees rallied in southern Lebanon on Tuesday in commemoration of the “ Nakba ” and in solidarity with the Gaza demonstrations .
Many were bused in from the longstanding refugee camps of Lebanon .
Palestinians have a complicated history with Lebanon . The influx of refugees in 1948 exacerbated Lebanon ’ s delicate sectarian balance and their presence is often cited as a major contributing factor to Lebanon ’ s 15-year civil war .
Now , more than 450,000 of five million registered Palestinian refugees worldwide live in Lebanon . Legally , their rights are limited : Palestinians can not own property or attend public schools , and are banned from working in more than 30 professions .
|
Ambassador Mansour Ayyad Al-Otaibi also criticized the Security Council for not agreeing to Kuwait’s request for an independent investigation of the Gaza deaths, adding that his country might instead seek an investigation by the United Nations Human Rights Office. Diplomats said that Kuwait had circulated a statement calling for an independent inquiry, which would require unanimous approval, but the United States had disagreed.
Defending Israel, Ambassador Nikki R. Haley of the United States denounced what she called the double standard that other nations applied to Israel. “Who among us would accept this type of activity on your border?” she asked. No country, she said, acted “with more restraint than Israel.”
She said that Hamas had been to blame for inciting protesters to storm the fence, and insisted that there had been no connection between the violence and celebrations on Monday for the opening of the American embassy. President Trump’s recognition of the Israeli position that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, she said, “makes peace more achievable, not less.”
Addressing the council, Nickolay Mladenov, the U.N. special coordinator for Middle East peace, found fault with both sides.
“Israel has a responsibility to calibrate its use of force, to not use lethal force, except as a last resort, under imminent threat of death or serious injury,” he said. He added that Hamas “must not use the protests as cover to attempt to place bombs at the fence and create provocations; its operatives must not hide among the demonstrators and risk the lives of civilians.”
Lebanon is also the site of a Palestinian demonstration.
Thousands of Palestinian refugees rallied in southern Lebanon on Tuesday in commemoration of the “Nakba” and in solidarity with the Gaza demonstrations.
Many were bused in from the longstanding refugee camps of Lebanon.
Palestinians have a complicated history with Lebanon. The influx of refugees in 1948 exacerbated Lebanon’s delicate sectarian balance and their presence is often cited as a major contributing factor to Lebanon’s 15-year civil war.
Now, more than 450,000 of five million registered Palestinian refugees worldwide live in Lebanon. Legally, their rights are limited: Palestinians cannot own property or attend public schools, and are banned from working in more than 30 professions.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
IKoWVxzYyQhe3nt1
|
|
taxes
|
Reason
| 22
|
https://reason.com/2019/11/06/texas-voters-ban-state-income-taxes-again/
|
Texas Voters Ban State Income Taxes. Again.
|
2019-11-06
|
Christian Britschgi, David Bernstein, Will Baude, Ilya Somin, Zuri Davis, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Eric Boehm
|
Texas , a state so nice they banned income taxes twice .
On Tuesday , some 76 percent of voters in the state approved Prop 4 , a constitutional amendment that prohibits the imposition of a state income tax .
The immediate practical impact of the vote is slight , given that Texas currently has no income tax , and the state constitution had already made passing one a difficult endeavor . The success of Prop . 4 nevertheless highlights the bipartisan political appeal of Texas ' long refusal to take a cut of people 's paychecks .
`` THANK YOU TEXANS ! ! ! ! Future generations of Texans will thank you too , '' tweeted Texas Gov . Greg Abbott , a Republican , after the vote . `` Keep Government out of your pocketbook . ''
Prior to the vote , Abbott had tweeted a video of himself tearing up a California state income tax return form . `` I never want to see one of these in the great state of Texas , '' he says to the camera .
This is not the first time Texas has passed strict constitutional limits on the state 's ability to tax income . In 1993 , voters approved an amendment that required any income tax to be approved by both the state legislature and voters through a statewide referendum . Any revenue generated by an income tax had to be dedicated to education funding .
At the end of last year , Rep. Jeff Leach ( R–Plano ) introduced HJR 38 , which would refer the question of a constitutional prohibition on an income tax to voters . Because Leach 's measure would amend the state constitution , it required two-thirds supermajorities—or support from some Democrats—in both the House and Senate , which it got .
`` My constituents do n't want a state income tax . And that 's what I 'm here to do is represent them , '' said one Democratic lawmaker when asked by the Dallas Morning News why she voted with Republicans to put HJR 38 ( later to become Prop 4 ) on the ballot .
A full two-thirds of the Texas legislature is now required to repeal the state 's income tax prohibition . Actually imposing an income tax would require additional legislation .
The lack of a state income tax is key to Texas ' economic competitiveness , says Janelle Cammenga , a policy analyst with the Tax Foundation , a D.C.-based think tank .
`` Income taxes are more economically harmful than consumption taxes because they capture both present and future income , and this discourages investment , '' she tells ███ in an email , writing that `` the absence of an income tax is the most competitive part of Texas 's tax code . ''
Texas is one of seven states to opt out of levying an income tax . The Tax Foundation rates Texas 13th on its state business tax climate index . The Cato Institute 's `` Freedom in the 50 States '' project ranks Texas as the seventh most free state on fiscal matters .
In addition to being good policy , the absence of an income tax has proven pretty popular , says Cammenga .
`` Some states have better alternatives to income taxes than others , but when a state eliminates its income tax , most voters like to keep it that way , '' she says . `` That 's true in red states like Texas and blue states like Washington . ''
|
Texas, a state so nice they banned income taxes twice.
On Tuesday, some 76 percent of voters in the state approved Prop 4, a constitutional amendment that prohibits the imposition of a state income tax.
The immediate practical impact of the vote is slight, given that Texas currently has no income tax, and the state constitution had already made passing one a difficult endeavor. The success of Prop. 4 nevertheless highlights the bipartisan political appeal of Texas' long refusal to take a cut of people's paychecks.
"THANK YOU TEXANS!!!! Future generations of Texans will thank you too," tweeted Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, after the vote. "Keep Government out of your pocketbook."
Prior to the vote, Abbott had tweeted a video of himself tearing up a California state income tax return form. "I never want to see one of these in the great state of Texas," he says to the camera.
This is not the first time Texas has passed strict constitutional limits on the state's ability to tax income. In 1993, voters approved an amendment that required any income tax to be approved by both the state legislature and voters through a statewide referendum. Any revenue generated by an income tax had to be dedicated to education funding.
That wasn't enough for some state legislators, however.
At the end of last year, Rep. Jeff Leach (R–Plano) introduced HJR 38, which would refer the question of a constitutional prohibition on an income tax to voters. Because Leach's measure would amend the state constitution, it required two-thirds supermajorities—or support from some Democrats—in both the House and Senate, which it got.
"My constituents don't want a state income tax. And that's what I'm here to do is represent them," said one Democratic lawmaker when asked by the Dallas Morning News why she voted with Republicans to put HJR 38 (later to become Prop 4) on the ballot.
A full two-thirds of the Texas legislature is now required to repeal the state's income tax prohibition. Actually imposing an income tax would require additional legislation.
The lack of a state income tax is key to Texas' economic competitiveness, says Janelle Cammenga, a policy analyst with the Tax Foundation, a D.C.-based think tank.
"Income taxes are more economically harmful than consumption taxes because they capture both present and future income, and this discourages investment," she tells Reason in an email, writing that "the absence of an income tax is the most competitive part of Texas's tax code."
Texas is one of seven states to opt out of levying an income tax. The Tax Foundation rates Texas 13th on its state business tax climate index. The Cato Institute's "Freedom in the 50 States" project ranks Texas as the seventh most free state on fiscal matters.
In addition to being good policy, the absence of an income tax has proven pretty popular, says Cammenga.
"Some states have better alternatives to income taxes than others, but when a state eliminates its income tax, most voters like to keep it that way," she says. "That's true in red states like Texas and blue states like Washington."
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
T3rlhjNq35IR1EF0
|
elections
|
Wall Street Journal - News
| 11
|
http://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-begin-tangling-over-convention-rules-1461281343
|
Republicans Begin Tangling Over Convention Rules
|
Janet Hook, Janet.Hook Wsj.Com
|
HOLLYWOOD , Fla.—The Republican Party has seen nearly all of its traditions and expectations upended by this year ’ s presidential campaign . Now , the party is under pressure to change even the most basic rules of the game .
Case in point : The spring meeting of the Republican National Committee , which wrangled over a proposal to make it harder for party elders at the July convention to anoint a “ white knight ” candidate should delegates deadlock over businessman Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas .
Thursday ’ s spat , tamped down by a voice vote , could be just the first in a string of disputes over usually arcane procedures and rules as the divided party heads into the final months of battle over choosing the GOP ’ s nominee . Already , party veterans are warning that the convention in July could end up entangled in legalistic skirmishes over who can serve as a delegate and how business will be conducted—details that could shape the battle for the nomination .
The potential for disorder looms because the party remains uncertain about which candidate will lead it into November . That leaves a vacuum at a time when a presumptive nominee usually has emerged to take control of the convention process .
In another sign of the oddity of the year , the focus Thursday was on a panel , the RNC Rules Committee , that lacks a final say over how the convention will proceed . Instead , it sets the stage for the convention ’ s own rules committee , which has the ultimate power .
As GOP leaders rallied against the proposal , its potential impact took a back seat to a larger concern that any change in party rules would be viewed with suspicion by many in the rank and file . That cautiousness reflects concern within the party that it is seen as siding with those who oppose Mr. Trump , the unexpected front-runner who has loudly accused the RNC of “ rigging ” the system to disadvantage him .
“ This is a very hotly contested election , and any change we make would be viewed with a large degree of cynicism , ” said Randy Evans , a national committeeman from Georgia . “ If we change a semicolon to a comma , there will probably be a debate on why that was so important . ”
The proposal was introduced by Solomon Yue , an RNC member from Oregon , who wanted to make it harder for party leaders to swoop into a deadlocked convention and anoint their own presidential candidate , a “ white knight ” who would be an alternative to Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz .
“ That would blow up the convention and this party , ” Mr. Yue said . “ This is a politically supercharged year . ”
The proposal was easily defeated after less than an hour ’ s debate , but Mr. Yue said he would try to press the proposal again at GOP meetings closer to the convention .
The skirmish is the first glimpse of how rocky the road to the convention promises to be if no one sews up the nomination before delegates gather .
The RNC meeting in this beach resort was a warm-up , as all 168 members of the committee will be delegates to the convention .
Mr. Cruz and Ohio Gov . John Kasich personally made the trip to Florida to woo party leaders on Wednesday . Mr. Trump sent Ben Carson , his former rival , and top campaign aide Paul Manafort as emissaries to a group that has been stung by the front-runner ’ s relentless attacks on the party ’ s delegate-selection system .
Mr. Manafort said his mission was “ not fence-mending so much as opening doors . ”
“ Donald Trump is an outsider , ” Mr. Manafort said . “ He hasn ’ t spent time with party leadership the way the other candidates have , who are career politicians. ” He added that said Mr. Trump had been “ misunderstood , ” because he wasn ’ t asking for the system to be changed midstream and didn ’ t mean to make a direct attack on the RNC .
“ We recognize that it isn ’ t going to happen during this process , but he is using the process to call attention to what he thinks is an abuse of the political system that should be repaired , ” Mr. Manafort said . “ He ’ s been more critical of the process than the party leadership . ”
But at a rally in New York this month , Mr. Trump was bluntly personal about the people attending Thursday ’ s meeting : “ The RNC , the Republican National Committee , they should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this kind of crap to happen . ”
At a closed-door presentation to RNC members on Thursday , Mr. Manafort and another top Trump aide , Rick Wiley , tried to make the case that Mr. Trump ’ s campaign was entering a new phase . They didn ’ t offer an apology , which many RNC members hoped they would , but they offered assurances that Mr. Trump would raise money for the party and would be “ more presidential . ”
“ Is Donald Trump running against the Republican National Committee ? The answer is he is not , ” Mr. Manafort said in the meeting , which was recorded by one participant who shared the tape with The Wall Street Journal . “ He is prepared to work with the RNC to raise the money that is necessary . ”
Mr. Manafort acknowledged Mr. Trump ’ s negative poll ratings were high but said they reflected personality issues that would be easier to overcome than questions about character that he attributed to the likely Democratic nominee , Hillary Clinton .
“ Fixing personality negatives is a lot easier than fixing character negatives , ” Mr. Manafort said . “ You can ’ t change somebody ’ s character . But you can change the way somebody presents themselves . ”
Those assurances met with some skepticism by officials who discussed the meeting afterward . “ The proof will be in the pudding , ” said Matt Moore , chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party .
Mr. Yue ’ s proposal was to have convention procedures be governed by Robert ’ s Rules of Order , instead of the traditional rules modeled on those used in the House of Representatives . He said House rules give too much power to the presiding officer—who is expected to be House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin—and they could be used to introduce a nominee other than Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz .
He said Robert ’ s Rules would make that harder by giving more power to delegates to interrupt proceedings and raise objections . Mr. Yue said he is neutral in the Trump-Cruz-Kasich fight and didn ’ t propose it to favor any particular candidate .
But his opponents said that they would surely face allegations of favoritism . “ We ’ re going to get accused , no matter what we do , of trying to rig the game , ” said Jeff Kent , an RNC member from Washington state .
|
HOLLYWOOD, Fla.—The Republican Party has seen nearly all of its traditions and expectations upended by this year’s presidential campaign. Now, the party is under pressure to change even the most basic rules of the game.
Case in point: The spring meeting of the Republican National Committee, which wrangled over a proposal to make it harder for party elders at the July convention to anoint a “white knight” candidate should delegates deadlock over businessman Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.
Thursday’s spat, tamped down by a voice vote, could be just the first in a string of disputes over usually arcane procedures and rules as the divided party heads into the final months of battle over choosing the GOP’s nominee. Already, party veterans are warning that the convention in July could end up entangled in legalistic skirmishes over who can serve as a delegate and how business will be conducted—details that could shape the battle for the nomination.
The potential for disorder looms because the party remains uncertain about which candidate will lead it into November. That leaves a vacuum at a time when a presumptive nominee usually has emerged to take control of the convention process.
In another sign of the oddity of the year, the focus Thursday was on a panel, the RNC Rules Committee, that lacks a final say over how the convention will proceed. Instead, it sets the stage for the convention’s own rules committee, which has the ultimate power.
As GOP leaders rallied against the proposal, its potential impact took a back seat to a larger concern that any change in party rules would be viewed with suspicion by many in the rank and file. That cautiousness reflects concern within the party that it is seen as siding with those who oppose Mr. Trump, the unexpected front-runner who has loudly accused the RNC of “rigging” the system to disadvantage him.
“This is a very hotly contested election, and any change we make would be viewed with a large degree of cynicism,” said Randy Evans, a national committeeman from Georgia. “If we change a semicolon to a comma, there will probably be a debate on why that was so important.”
The proposal was introduced by Solomon Yue, an RNC member from Oregon, who wanted to make it harder for party leaders to swoop into a deadlocked convention and anoint their own presidential candidate, a “white knight” who would be an alternative to Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz.
“That would blow up the convention and this party,” Mr. Yue said. “This is a politically supercharged year.”
Donald Trump, after an overwhelming victory in the New York Republican primary, unveiled a more establishment demeanor. WSJ’s Monica Langley unpacks the personnel hires and strategic shifts behind the campaign’s evolution. Photo: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images
The proposal was easily defeated after less than an hour’s debate, but Mr. Yue said he would try to press the proposal again at GOP meetings closer to the convention.
The skirmish is the first glimpse of how rocky the road to the convention promises to be if no one sews up the nomination before delegates gather.
The RNC meeting in this beach resort was a warm-up, as all 168 members of the committee will be delegates to the convention.
Mr. Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich personally made the trip to Florida to woo party leaders on Wednesday. Mr. Trump sent Ben Carson, his former rival, and top campaign aide Paul Manafort as emissaries to a group that has been stung by the front-runner’s relentless attacks on the party’s delegate-selection system.
Mr. Manafort said his mission was “not fence-mending so much as opening doors.”
“Donald Trump is an outsider,” Mr. Manafort said. “He hasn’t spent time with party leadership the way the other candidates have, who are career politicians.” He added that said Mr. Trump had been “misunderstood,” because he wasn’t asking for the system to be changed midstream and didn’t mean to make a direct attack on the RNC.
“We recognize that it isn’t going to happen during this process, but he is using the process to call attention to what he thinks is an abuse of the political system that should be repaired,” Mr. Manafort said. “He’s been more critical of the process than the party leadership.”
But at a rally in New York this month, Mr. Trump was bluntly personal about the people attending Thursday’s meeting: “The RNC, the Republican National Committee, they should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this kind of crap to happen.”
At a closed-door presentation to RNC members on Thursday, Mr. Manafort and another top Trump aide, Rick Wiley, tried to make the case that Mr. Trump’s campaign was entering a new phase. They didn’t offer an apology, which many RNC members hoped they would, but they offered assurances that Mr. Trump would raise money for the party and would be “more presidential.”
“Is Donald Trump running against the Republican National Committee? The answer is he is not,” Mr. Manafort said in the meeting, which was recorded by one participant who shared the tape with The Wall Street Journal. “He is prepared to work with the RNC to raise the money that is necessary.”
Mr. Manafort acknowledged Mr. Trump’s negative poll ratings were high but said they reflected personality issues that would be easier to overcome than questions about character that he attributed to the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
“Fixing personality negatives is a lot easier than fixing character negatives,” Mr. Manafort said. “You can’t change somebody’s character. But you can change the way somebody presents themselves.”
Those assurances met with some skepticism by officials who discussed the meeting afterward. “The proof will be in the pudding,” said Matt Moore, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party.
Mr. Yue’s proposal was to have convention procedures be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order, instead of the traditional rules modeled on those used in the House of Representatives. He said House rules give too much power to the presiding officer—who is expected to be House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin—and they could be used to introduce a nominee other than Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz.
He said Robert’s Rules would make that harder by giving more power to delegates to interrupt proceedings and raise objections. Mr. Yue said he is neutral in the Trump-Cruz-Kasich fight and didn’t propose it to favor any particular candidate.
But his opponents said that they would surely face allegations of favoritism. “We’re going to get accused, no matter what we do, of trying to rig the game,” said Jeff Kent, an RNC member from Washington state.
Write to Janet Hook at [email protected]
|
www.wsj.com
| 2center
|
xpn9oD9re5GRQ2UY
|
|
justice
|
Wall Street Journal - News
| 11
|
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-says-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-will-stay-at-least-until-november-midterm-elections-1535661957
|
Trump Says Jeff Sessions Will Stay Through November Midterm Elections
|
Michael C. Bender, Mike.Bender Wsj.Com
|
WASHINGTON—President Trump said he has put off the decision about whether to fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions , a frequent target of his ire , until at least after the November congressional elections .
“ I just would love to have him do a great job , ” Mr. Trump said about Mr . Sessions on Thursday in an interview with Bloomberg News . Mr. Trump declined to say whether he ’ d keep Mr . Sessions on the job beyond November .
Mr. Trump has publicly criticized Mr . Sessions for months , and recently told one Republican lawmaker that he wanted to fire him before the midterm elections , according to a person familiar with the matter . But top Republican lawmakers have urged Mr . Sessions to resist pressure to quit and have pushed Mr. Trump to stand down for now .
Mr. Trump ’ s statement on Mr . Sessions came after the president surveyed advisers earlier this week about the potential political blowback from firing Mr . Sessions , telling one person that he didn ’ t believe there would be much , according to a person familiar with the matter . Inside the White House , senior officials gave Mr. Trump legal and political reasons for not removing Mr . Sessions , but those advisers weren ’ t sure earlier this week what Mr. Trump would ultimately decide .
One factor for Mr. Trump ’ s decision to keep Mr . Sessions for the coming months is that there is no obvious replacement . White House officials and others Mr. Trump has spoken to about firing Mr . Sessions said the president has not inquired about potential successors , these people said .
Fueling Mr. Trump ’ s anger is his view that Mr . Sessions erred in recusing himself from the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections , White House aides have said . That investigation is looking into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia , as well as possible obstruction of justice . Mr. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and has called the probe a “ witch hunt. ” Russia also has denied any involvement .
Last week , President Trump issued the latest in a series of attacks on Mr . Sessions , suggesting that Mr . Sessions is allowing the special counsel ’ s Russia investigation to proceed while permitting “ real corruption ” to go “ untouched . ”
In response , Mr . Sessions issued a rare public statement defending his leadership of the Justice Department . “ While I am attorney general , the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations , ” he said .
The tweets put renewed pressure on Mr . Sessions , who is in the delicate position of both fending off attacks from Mr. Trump while carrying out the president ’ s tough-on-crime policies .
|
WASHINGTON—President Trump said he has put off the decision about whether to fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a frequent target of his ire, until at least after the November congressional elections.
“I just would love to have him do a great job,” Mr. Trump said about Mr. Sessions on Thursday in an interview with Bloomberg News. Mr. Trump declined to say whether he’d keep Mr. Sessions on the job beyond November.
Mr. Trump has publicly criticized Mr. Sessions for months, and recently told one Republican lawmaker that he wanted to fire him before the midterm elections, according to a person familiar with the matter. But top Republican lawmakers have urged Mr. Sessions to resist pressure to quit and have pushed Mr. Trump to stand down for now.
Mr. Trump’s statement on Mr. Sessions came after the president surveyed advisers earlier this week about the potential political blowback from firing Mr. Sessions, telling one person that he didn’t believe there would be much, according to a person familiar with the matter. Inside the White House, senior officials gave Mr. Trump legal and political reasons for not removing Mr. Sessions, but those advisers weren’t sure earlier this week what Mr. Trump would ultimately decide.
One factor for Mr. Trump’s decision to keep Mr. Sessions for the coming months is that there is no obvious replacement. White House officials and others Mr. Trump has spoken to about firing Mr. Sessions said the president has not inquired about potential successors, these people said.
Fueling Mr. Trump’s anger is his view that Mr. Sessions erred in recusing himself from the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections, White House aides have said. That investigation is looking into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, as well as possible obstruction of justice. Mr. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and has called the probe a “witch hunt.” Russia also has denied any involvement.
Last week, President Trump issued the latest in a series of attacks on Mr. Sessions, suggesting that Mr. Sessions is allowing the special counsel’s Russia investigation to proceed while permitting “real corruption” to go “untouched.”
In response, Mr. Sessions issued a rare public statement defending his leadership of the Justice Department. “While I am attorney general, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations,” he said.
The tweets put renewed pressure on Mr. Sessions, who is in the delicate position of both fending off attacks from Mr. Trump while carrying out the president’s tough-on-crime policies.
Write to Michael C. Bender at [email protected]
|
www.wsj.com
| 2center
|
fosBx12UnnB0um8T
|
|
impeachment
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/21/mark-pocan-backs-calls-impeachment-trump/
|
Progressive Caucus chair backs calls for Trump impeachment inquiry
|
2019-05-21
|
Stephen Dinan, Gabriella Muñoz
|
Several senior House Democrats announced their support Tuesday for starting an impeachment inquiry against President Trump , putting party leaders on the defensive as they try to balance their hopes for an aggressive legislative agenda against a left wing out for blood .
Even some of the leadership team of Speaker Nancy Pelosi , California Democrat , joined the push to start the path to impeachment , though they were careful to say they will defer to Mrs. Pelosi ’ s wishes .
Their fury was stoked by Mr. Trump ’ s directive to former White House counsel Don McGahn to defy a subpoena demanding that he testify Tuesday to the House Judiciary Committee . The White House said Mr. McGahn , as a former close adviser to Mr. Trump , did not have to testify under the separation of powers doctrine that protects a president ’ s close team from being forced to testify .
Lawmakers said the president ’ s moves to thwart their investigations have left them with few choices other than to beg the courts to referee .
“ I think there ’ s a growing understanding that the impeachment process is going to be inevitable . It ’ s just a question of when , not if , ” said Rep. John A. Yarmuth , Kentucky Democrat and chairman of the House Budget Committee . “ If it happens this summer , that ’ s fine . If it goes into the fall or next year , I think that ’ s probably too late . ”
Among the new voices for impeachment was Rep. David N. Cicilline , Rhode Island Democrat and chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee , and Rep. Mark Pocan , Wisconsin Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus .
“ Regrettably , the president ’ s most recent actions and continued disrespect for the Constitution are forcing us down the road to impeachment , ” Mr. Pocan said in a statement .
Mrs. Pelosi and her top lieutenants , though , say the time is not ripe .
Majority Whip James E. Clyburn , South Carolina Democrat , told MSNBC that a majority of the House Democratic Caucus would prefer not to pursue impeachment right now , and Rep. Hakeem S. Jeffries of New York , chairman of the House Democratic Caucus , discounted talk of impeachment as inevitable .
“ I disagree with the notion that a growing number of the Democratic caucus wants to jump straight to impeachment , ” he said . “ What unifies us is a focus on kitchen table issues . ”
That is also Mrs. Pelosi ’ s pitch . The Senate , controlled by Republicans , won ’ t convict Mr. Trump , so pursuing impeachment would be a partisan distraction from Democrats ’ campaign issues in 2018 .
Mrs. Pelosi is reportedly meeting with lawmakers Wednesday morning to discuss House investigations .
Some freshmen Democrats from competitive districts , such as Reps. Katie Hill of California , Jason Crow of Colorado and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan , are siding with Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Jeffries , saying they back the ongoing investigations but must take action on their party ’ s agenda .
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York , a bellwether liberal , said such talk smacked of fear .
“ Failure to impeach now is neglect of due process , ” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted .
Although the outcome of special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation is riling many Democrats , the renewed heat behind impeachment comes from Mr. Trump ’ s moves to claim privilege or immunity to defy subpoenas for his team .
Mr. Trump ’ s instruction to Mr. McGahn not to appear for testimony this week was the last straw for some .
“ Had he shown up , things might have been different , ” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal , Washington Democrat and member of the House Judiciary Committee .
In explaining to House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler , New York Democrat , why the White House was directing Mr. McGahn not to comply with the subpoena , White House Counsel Pat Cipollone said everything Mr. McGahn did is protected from disclosure by the president ’ s privilege to obtain advice from his close advisers without worrying about interrogation by political adversaries in Congress .
“ The Department of Justice … has advised me that Mr. McGahn is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony with respect to matters occurring during his service as a senior adviser to the president , ” Mr. Cipollone wrote to Mr. Nadler on Monday .
Because Mr. McGahn ’ s work for the White House is exempt , he can not be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply , said the Justice Department ’ s office of legal counsel .
Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia , the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee , said Democrats are “ trying desperately to make something out of nothing . ”
Rep. Justin Amash , a Michigan Republican , who over the weekend said Mr. Trump had engaged in “ impeachable conduct , ” is encouraging other Republicans to join him .
That was quickly shot down by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , California Republican , who said Mr. Amash was “ out of step with America . ”
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s going to be a trendsetting move , ” said Sen. Lindsey Graham , South Carolina Republican .
Liberal activists were thrilled to see the growing calls for impeachment .
“ The dam is breaking , and the voices of people demanding impeachment are becoming impossible to ignore , ” said CREDO Action Co-Director Heidi Hess .
She said Mrs. Pelosi is “ running out of excuses , and her ability to delay impeachment proceedings is getting weaker by the day . ”
While resisting calls to ramp up pressure on the Trump administration by taking stronger action such as contempt or impeachment inquiries , Mrs. Pelosi has repeatedly deferred to her chairmen , including Mr. Nadler , who would oversee impeachment .
Mr. Nadler has to make sure his entire committee is “ comfortable ” before making his decision , Ms. Jayapal said .
Some members are looking to push forward with moving whether Mrs. Pelosi is on board or not .
Rep. Al Green , a Texas Democrat who has repeatedly pushed impeachment even before the drastic escalation in tensions between Congress and the White House , said he will force a vote on impeachment if no one else does .
“ I think that the president is leaving us very little choice , ” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon , Pennsylvania Democrat and vice chairwoman of the Judiciary Committee . “ I think that we have to investigate the president in any event , but I think we ’ re at the point now where he ’ s obstructing everything . Yes , we do have to start an inquiry . ”
Other Democrats backing the beginning of impeachment said they are not calling for the president ’ s ouster but rather for an impeachment inquiry , which would gather information to inform them on whether Mr. Trump should face articles of impeachment .
Progressive freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib , Michigan Democrat , introduced an inquiry resolution this year .
Ms. Jayapal , a supporter of an inquiry , said that rather than signing Ms. Tlaib ’ s resolution , members of the Judiciary Committee will take action .
Others said they will wait for Mrs. Pelosi ’ s green light .
“ This is a decision that doesn ’ t get to be made by me . It ’ s a decision made collectively by our caucus as represented by the speaker . I think the speaker will continue to engage with our caucus , ” Mr. Cicilline said . “ We elected her as our speaker , and I think she is especially masterful of listening to and incorporating the sentiment of the caucus . ”
• Bailey Vogt and Jeff Mordock contributed to this article .
|
Several senior House Democrats announced their support Tuesday for starting an impeachment inquiry against President Trump, putting party leaders on the defensive as they try to balance their hopes for an aggressive legislative agenda against a left wing out for blood.
Even some of the leadership team of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, joined the push to start the path to impeachment, though they were careful to say they will defer to Mrs. Pelosi’s wishes.
Their fury was stoked by Mr. Trump’s directive to former White House counsel Don McGahn to defy a subpoena demanding that he testify Tuesday to the House Judiciary Committee. The White House said Mr. McGahn, as a former close adviser to Mr. Trump, did not have to testify under the separation of powers doctrine that protects a president’s close team from being forced to testify.
Lawmakers said the president’s moves to thwart their investigations have left them with few choices other than to beg the courts to referee.
“I think there’s a growing understanding that the impeachment process is going to be inevitable. It’s just a question of when, not if,” said Rep. John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Democrat and chairman of the House Budget Committee. “If it happens this summer, that’s fine. If it goes into the fall or next year, I think that’s probably too late.”
Among the new voices for impeachment was Rep. David N. Cicilline, Rhode Island Democrat and chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, and Rep. Mark Pocan, Wisconsin Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
“Regrettably, the president’s most recent actions and continued disrespect for the Constitution are forcing us down the road to impeachment,” Mr. Pocan said in a statement.
Mrs. Pelosi and her top lieutenants, though, say the time is not ripe.
Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, South Carolina Democrat, told MSNBC that a majority of the House Democratic Caucus would prefer not to pursue impeachment right now, and Rep. Hakeem S. Jeffries of New York, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, discounted talk of impeachment as inevitable.
“I disagree with the notion that a growing number of the Democratic caucus wants to jump straight to impeachment,” he said. “What unifies us is a focus on kitchen table issues.”
That is also Mrs. Pelosi’s pitch. The Senate, controlled by Republicans, won’t convict Mr. Trump, so pursuing impeachment would be a partisan distraction from Democrats’ campaign issues in 2018.
Mrs. Pelosi is reportedly meeting with lawmakers Wednesday morning to discuss House investigations.
Some freshmen Democrats from competitive districts, such as Reps. Katie Hill of California, Jason Crow of Colorado and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, are siding with Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Jeffries, saying they back the ongoing investigations but must take action on their party’s agenda.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, a bellwether liberal, said such talk smacked of fear.
“Failure to impeach now is neglect of due process,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.
Although the outcome of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is riling many Democrats, the renewed heat behind impeachment comes from Mr. Trump’s moves to claim privilege or immunity to defy subpoenas for his team.
Mr. Trump’s instruction to Mr. McGahn not to appear for testimony this week was the last straw for some.
“Had he shown up, things might have been different,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Washington Democrat and member of the House Judiciary Committee.
In explaining to House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat, why the White House was directing Mr. McGahn not to comply with the subpoena, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone said everything Mr. McGahn did is protected from disclosure by the president’s privilege to obtain advice from his close advisers without worrying about interrogation by political adversaries in Congress.
“The Department of Justice … has advised me that Mr. McGahn is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony with respect to matters occurring during his service as a senior adviser to the president,” Mr. Cipollone wrote to Mr. Nadler on Monday.
Because Mr. McGahn’s work for the White House is exempt, he cannot be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply, said the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel.
Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said Democrats are “trying desperately to make something out of nothing.”
Rep. Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, who over the weekend said Mr. Trump had engaged in “impeachable conduct,” is encouraging other Republicans to join him.
That was quickly shot down by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, California Republican, who said Mr. Amash was “out of step with America.”
“I don’t think it’s going to be a trendsetting move,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican.
Liberal activists were thrilled to see the growing calls for impeachment.
“The dam is breaking, and the voices of people demanding impeachment are becoming impossible to ignore,” said CREDO Action Co-Director Heidi Hess.
She said Mrs. Pelosi is “running out of excuses, and her ability to delay impeachment proceedings is getting weaker by the day.”
While resisting calls to ramp up pressure on the Trump administration by taking stronger action such as contempt or impeachment inquiries, Mrs. Pelosi has repeatedly deferred to her chairmen, including Mr. Nadler, who would oversee impeachment.
Mr. Nadler has to make sure his entire committee is “comfortable” before making his decision, Ms. Jayapal said.
Some members are looking to push forward with moving whether Mrs. Pelosi is on board or not.
Rep. Al Green, a Texas Democrat who has repeatedly pushed impeachment even before the drastic escalation in tensions between Congress and the White House, said he will force a vote on impeachment if no one else does.
“I think that the president is leaving us very little choice,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, Pennsylvania Democrat and vice chairwoman of the Judiciary Committee. “I think that we have to investigate the president in any event, but I think we’re at the point now where he’s obstructing everything. Yes, we do have to start an inquiry.”
Other Democrats backing the beginning of impeachment said they are not calling for the president’s ouster but rather for an impeachment inquiry, which would gather information to inform them on whether Mr. Trump should face articles of impeachment.
Progressive freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Democrat, introduced an inquiry resolution this year.
As of Tuesday afternoon, seven members had signed on.
Ms. Jayapal, a supporter of an inquiry, said that rather than signing Ms. Tlaib’s resolution, members of the Judiciary Committee will take action.
Others said they will wait for Mrs. Pelosi’s green light.
“This is a decision that doesn’t get to be made by me. It’s a decision made collectively by our caucus as represented by the speaker. I think the speaker will continue to engage with our caucus,” Mr. Cicilline said. “We elected her as our speaker, and I think she is especially masterful of listening to and incorporating the sentiment of the caucus.”
• Bailey Vogt and Jeff Mordock 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
|
SWR0yD40r7dDZyui
|
politics
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/13/politics/roy-moore-washington-post-lawsuit/index.html
|
Moore threatens to sue Washington Post over report
|
2017-11-13
|
Susannah Cullinane
|
( CNN ) Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore says he will sue the Washington Post over its report alleging he pursued sexual relationships with teenagers -- including a 14-year-old -- when he was in his 30s .
`` The Washington Post published another attack on my character and reputation because they are desperate to stop my political campaign . These attacks said I was with a minor child and are false and untrue -- and for which they will be sued , '' Moore said Sunday night during a campaign speech in Huntsville , Alabama .
It 's not uncommon for public figures to threaten legal action against news organizations but ultimately fail to follow through . President Donald Trump threatened to sue The New York Times last year after it published the accounts of two women who claimed Trump touched them inappropriately . His lawyers never filed a lawsuit .
More recently , disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein initially threatened to sue the Times after it first reported allegations of sexual misconduct against him , but that suit never materialized
The Washington Post report Thursday was based on interviews with more than 30 people . As well as the allegations that Moore had sexual contact with the then 14-year-old when he was aged 32 , three other women also told The Post that Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18 .
The woman who was 14 years old at the time claimed he took her to his house , undressed down to his underwear and undressed her down to her bra and underwear and touched her and moved her hand to touch his underwear , which could have been sexual offenses due to her age , but the statutes of limitations in effect during that time have passed .
None of the other three women told the Post that Moore sexually harassed , or assaulted them , or forced them into a relationship . Alabama 's legal age of consent is 16 .
Moore has denied the allegations since they were published . He called the claims `` completely false `` Friday when appearing on Sean Hannity 's syndicated radio show .
Speaking at a Veterans Day event at the Mid-Alabama Republican Club in Birmingham Saturday , Moore called the allegations `` fake news '' and `` yet another attack on my character and reputation in a desperate attempt to stop my political campaign for the United States Senate . ''
He added that the alleged incidents happened nearly 40 years ago and called them `` very hurtful to me personally -- I have the highest regard for the protection of young children , '' before adding that he has never provided alcohol to a minor and has `` not been guilty of sexual misconduct with anyone . ''
Moore added that there were ongoing `` investigations '' looking into the motivations behind the Post article , and promised `` revelations '' about the story to come in the next few days , though he did not provide further specifics .
A number of Republicans withdrew their endorsements of Moore following the Washington Post article , including the National Republican Senatorial Committee , which severed a joint fundraising agreement that benefits Moore 's campaign .
This story has been updated to reflect the Post 's decision to not comment .
|
(CNN) Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore says he will sue the Washington Post over its report alleging he pursued sexual relationships with teenagers -- including a 14-year-old -- when he was in his 30s.
"The Washington Post published another attack on my character and reputation because they are desperate to stop my political campaign. These attacks said I was with a minor child and are false and untrue -- and for which they will be sued," Moore said Sunday night during a campaign speech in Huntsville, Alabama.
The Washington Post declined to comment Monday morning.
It's not uncommon for public figures to threaten legal action against news organizations but ultimately fail to follow through. President Donald Trump threatened to sue The New York Times last year after it published the accounts of two women who claimed Trump touched them inappropriately. His lawyers never filed a lawsuit.
More recently, disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein initially threatened to sue the Times after it first reported allegations of sexual misconduct against him, but that suit never materialized
The Washington Post report Thursday was based on interviews with more than 30 people. As well as the allegations that Moore had sexual contact with the then 14-year-old when he was aged 32, three other women also told The Post that Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18.
The woman who was 14 years old at the time claimed he took her to his house, undressed down to his underwear and undressed her down to her bra and underwear and touched her and moved her hand to touch his underwear, which could have been sexual offenses due to her age, but the statutes of limitations in effect during that time have passed.
None of the other three women told the Post that Moore sexually harassed, or assaulted them, or forced them into a relationship. Alabama's legal age of consent is 16.
Moore has denied the allegations since they were published. He called the claims " completely false " Friday when appearing on Sean Hannity's syndicated radio show.
Speaking at a Veterans Day event at the Mid-Alabama Republican Club in Birmingham Saturday, Moore called the allegations "fake news" and "yet another attack on my character and reputation in a desperate attempt to stop my political campaign for the United States Senate."
He added that the alleged incidents happened nearly 40 years ago and called them "very hurtful to me personally -- I have the highest regard for the protection of young children," before adding that he has never provided alcohol to a minor and has "not been guilty of sexual misconduct with anyone."
Moore added that there were ongoing "investigations" looking into the motivations behind the Post article, and promised "revelations" about the story to come in the next few days, though he did not provide further specifics.
A number of Republicans withdrew their endorsements of Moore following the Washington Post article, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which severed a joint fundraising agreement that benefits Moore's campaign.
This story has been updated to reflect the Post's decision to not comment.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
ZviQ26kyJnmpY6sJ
|
immigration
|
Breitbart News
| 22
|
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/12/Op-Ed-Secure-the-Border
|
Rand Paul: Secure the Border
|
2014-06-12
|
Sen. Rand Paul
|
I am for immigration reform because I am against allowing 12 million more illegal immigrants into our country . If we do nothing , 12 million more illegal immigrants will come . We must be in favor of reform–smart reform that starts with border security .
What we have now is a lawless border . Current policy is a beacon for more illegal immigrants . The Obama administration ’ s lawless executive orders legalizing people who came here illegally will only encourage more illegal immigration–unless we act now with real , strong , verifiable border security .
I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable . I voted against the Gang of Eight ’ s comprehensive immigration reform bill because it did not secure the border first . I will only support reform that has border security first as verifiable and ascertained by Congress , not the president .
My plan will not give the president the authority to simply declare that the border is secure . It will require yearly votes of Congress to ensure the president doesn ’ t get around the law .
My “ Trust but Verify ” plan will ensure that our border is secure . Under my plan , national security and border security will move as the first element of any reform and would require annual votes of Congress to establish that the border is truly secure . No other reform could go forward until this happened .
In addition to increased border security , our nation needs to modernize our visa system . We need to know who comes and goes on travel , student , and other temporary visas . There must be a workable system to ensure that visitors don ’ t use travel visas as a way to enter the country then disappear . This will address the problem of visa over-stayers .
National security has to be a cornerstone to any border security and visa reform initiative . Our nation needs to look back at the September 11th Commission Report and study the recommendations regarding terrorists ’ use of visas to commit acts of violence against America . The 9/11 hijackers used visas to enter the country and to stay here while planning attacks .
Strong border security includes using cutting edge technology . Satellites , physical barriers , screening to bar criminals and terrorists from entry , increased patrols on the border–and yes , surveillance drones–all should be part of a comprehensive plan to physically protect the border . My plan is to take specific measures at the border and then have the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General ’ s Office produce a report to Congress on the progress of border security .
My plan takes border security a step further than anybody else in Congress . Under my plan , Congress will vote every year on border security . If Congress votes that the border is not secure , elements of immigration reform will cease to go forward and visa programs will be slowed . If Congress does not think the border is secure after five years , every element of immigration reform will be stopped .
Our nation is a nation of immigrants . Throughout history , our nation has been flooded with immigrants who have moved here with a flavor for the home country , yet they have assimilated into what we know today as America . That idea , and the American Dream , must be protected and preserved .
Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism here in the United States . Our nation should have open arms to immigrants who want to come her and work hard to make a new life in a free nation . As a libertarian-minded senator , I am attracted to the idea of somebody coming to this country with a couple dollars in his pocket , and then through hard work , make the American Dream a reality .
I do not support amnesty , which is why I don ’ t support our current system with no border security and a blind eye to the problem .
I support legal , not illegal , immigration . We must embrace immigration and immigrants , and we must recognize that our country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make better lives for themselves . However , our current system is broken , and we can not move towards reform until our border is truly and fully secure .
|
I am for immigration reform because I am against allowing 12 million more illegal immigrants into our country. If we do nothing, 12 million more illegal immigrants will come. We must be in favor of reform–smart reform that starts with border security.
Characterizing that position as “amnesty” is simply untrue.
What we have now is a lawless border. Current policy is a beacon for more illegal immigrants. The Obama administration’s lawless executive orders legalizing people who came here illegally will only encourage more illegal immigration–unless we act now with real, strong, verifiable border security.
I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable. I voted against the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform bill because it did not secure the border first. I will only support reform that has border security first as verifiable and ascertained by Congress, not the president.
My plan will not give the president the authority to simply declare that the border is secure. It will require yearly votes of Congress to ensure the president doesn’t get around the law.
My “Trust but Verify” plan will ensure that our border is secure. Under my plan, national security and border security will move as the first element of any reform and would require annual votes of Congress to establish that the border is truly secure. No other reform could go forward until this happened.
In addition to increased border security, our nation needs to modernize our visa system. We need to know who comes and goes on travel, student, and other temporary visas. There must be a workable system to ensure that visitors don’t use travel visas as a way to enter the country then disappear. This will address the problem of visa over-stayers.
National security has to be a cornerstone to any border security and visa reform initiative. Our nation needs to look back at the September 11th Commission Report and study the recommendations regarding terrorists’ use of visas to commit acts of violence against America. The 9/11 hijackers used visas to enter the country and to stay here while planning attacks.
Strong border security includes using cutting edge technology. Satellites, physical barriers, screening to bar criminals and terrorists from entry, increased patrols on the border–and yes, surveillance drones–all should be part of a comprehensive plan to physically protect the border. My plan is to take specific measures at the border and then have the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General’s Office produce a report to Congress on the progress of border security.
My plan takes border security a step further than anybody else in Congress. Under my plan, Congress will vote every year on border security. If Congress votes that the border is not secure, elements of immigration reform will cease to go forward and visa programs will be slowed. If Congress does not think the border is secure after five years, every element of immigration reform will be stopped.
Our nation is a nation of immigrants. Throughout history, our nation has been flooded with immigrants who have moved here with a flavor for the home country, yet they have assimilated into what we know today as America. That idea, and the American Dream, must be protected and preserved.
Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism here in the United States. Our nation should have open arms to immigrants who want to come her and work hard to make a new life in a free nation. As a libertarian-minded senator, I am attracted to the idea of somebody coming to this country with a couple dollars in his pocket, and then through hard work, make the American Dream a reality.
I do not support amnesty, which is why I don’t support our current system with no border security and a blind eye to the problem.
I support legal, not illegal, immigration. We must embrace immigration and immigrants, and we must recognize that our country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make better lives for themselves. However, our current system is broken, and we cannot move towards reform until our border is truly and fully secure.
|
www.breitbart.com
| 1right
|
WU0H1oEM5QYBL0eA
|
immigration
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/opinion/trump-legal-immigration-senseless.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
|
OPINION: Trump Embraces a Senseless Immigration Proposal
|
2017-08-07
|
President Trump has endorsed legislation that would slash legal immigration by half , mainly by cutting the number of visas granted to relatives of citizens , while favoring people who speak English and have advanced degrees . The bill , which would do nothing to solve the country ’ s immigration and economic challenges , is unlikely to become law . The only way to understand Mr. Trump ’ s vocal support of an obvious turkey is as yet another attempt to energize his dwindling base of right-wing and nativist supporters .
The bill was introduced by two Republican senators , Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia , who say it will protect American workers from competition from low-skilled foreign workers . Right now , the government issues more than a million green cards every year , most of them to relatives of citizens . A smaller number , 140,000 , are provided on the basis of job skills .
The proposal would slash the total number of green cards issued by 41 percent in the first year and by 50 percent in the 10th year , with most of the cuts coming from family-based immigration . It would cap the number of refugees admitted every year and eliminate a program that provides green cards via lottery to people from countries that send few immigrants to the United States . The bill would not reduce employment-based green cards , but it would change how the recipients are selected by putting in place a points-based system that rewards people who speak English and have advanced degrees and work experience .
The issue of immigration in America is volatile and complex and thus vulnerable to seductive promises . This bill falls into that category . Its central premise — that it would help American workers — is false . It ’ s true that an influx of workers can cause short-term disruptions to the labor market , but the impact on the wages of native workers over a period of 10 years or more is “ very small , ” according to a comprehensive National Academies of Sciences , Engineering and Medicine report published last year .
|
President Trump has endorsed legislation that would slash legal immigration by half, mainly by cutting the number of visas granted to relatives of citizens, while favoring people who speak English and have advanced degrees. The bill, which would do nothing to solve the country’s immigration and economic challenges, is unlikely to become law. The only way to understand Mr. Trump’s vocal support of an obvious turkey is as yet another attempt to energize his dwindling base of right-wing and nativist supporters.
The bill was introduced by two Republican senators, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia, who say it will protect American workers from competition from low-skilled foreign workers. Right now, the government issues more than a million green cards every year, most of them to relatives of citizens. A smaller number, 140,000, are provided on the basis of job skills.
The proposal would slash the total number of green cards issued by 41 percent in the first year and by 50 percent in the 10th year, with most of the cuts coming from family-based immigration. It would cap the number of refugees admitted every year and eliminate a program that provides green cards via lottery to people from countries that send few immigrants to the United States. The bill would not reduce employment-based green cards, but it would change how the recipients are selected by putting in place a points-based system that rewards people who speak English and have advanced degrees and work experience.
The issue of immigration in America is volatile and complex and thus vulnerable to seductive promises. This bill falls into that category. Its central premise — that it would help American workers — is false. It’s true that an influx of workers can cause short-term disruptions to the labor market, but the impact on the wages of native workers over a period of 10 years or more is “very small,” according to a comprehensive National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report published last year.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
ycyU7DlDmC5wNo6T
|
|
technology
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/bannon-cambridge-analytica/index.html
|
How Steve Bannon used Cambridge Analytica to further his alt-right vision for America
|
2018-03-30
|
Curt Devine, "Donie OSullivan", Drew Griffin
|
( CNN ) Long before Donald Trump declared his presidential candidacy , conservative strategist Steve Bannon sought to leverage data-driven technology to push the hearts and minds of voters toward his populist vision for America .
Former Cambridge Analytica staffers tell CNN that Bannon 's vision came to fruition through their previous employer , which they described as a weapon of psychological warfare . They say that Cambridge Analytica 's parent company had worked on government and military contracts that aimed to change foreign populations ' behaviors , which aligned with Bannon 's intentions .
Two former employees said that Bannon was personally involved in the company 's early stages and that he played a direct role shaping its strategy and goals .
`` This was Steve Bannon 's baby , '' said former contractor Christopher Wylie , who described Cambridge Analytica as `` Bannon 's arsenal of weaponry to wage a culture war on America using military strategies . ''
Bannon wanted to use the sorts of aggressive messaging tactics usually reserved for geopolitical conflicts to move the US electorate further to the right , Wylie said . He had already directed a series of anti-establishment , conservative documentary films and presided over the far-right website Breitbart News , but Cambridge Analytica would mark another step in his overall ambitions to transform the nation .
With financial backing from hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer , Bannon co-founded Cambridge Analytica in 2013 as the US-branch of Strategic Communication Laboratories ( SCL ) Group , a British company that advertises how it has conducted `` behavioral change '' programs in more than 60 countries .
Wylie described Cambridge Analytica as `` Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer using a foreign , military contractor ... to use some of the same techniques that the military uses ... on the American electorate . ''
Bannon and Cambridge Analytica did not respond to requests for comment to this story .
SCL Group has consulted numerous government agencies and organizations on psychological operations and strategic messaging since the 1990s . The company has offered clients `` research and analysis that yields intervention strategies aimed at specific behaviors , '' according to its website
That work has included an examination of ways to reduce recruitment into violent jihadist groups in Pakistan in 2009 , a communication program aimed at decreasing the number of improvised explosive devices built in Iraq , as well as political consulting throughout sub-Saharan Africa , Southeast Asia and South America , according to SCL documents .
SCL was commissioned to train a psychological operations group that supported the British military , according to a 2012 letter by the group 's then-commanding officer .
The US State Department also contracted SCL in 2017 to conduct `` target audience research '' in order to better understand ISIS radicalization and recruitment . A State Department official told CNN the research included about 100 interviews in Europe and the Middle East .
`` SCL 's sales pitch essentially was 'Look , we go into foreign countries . We use our tools , our psychographic profiling , to manipulate public opinion . ' Ultimately that 's what Bannon wanted to do in the United States , '' said CNN political analyst Joshua Green , whose book 'Devil 's Bargain ' chronicles Bannon 's role in Trump 's election .
Cambridge Analytica has come under fire this month for its alleged use of personal data from tens of millions of Facebook users obtained through the company Global Science Research ( GSR ) without Facebook 's permission . The New York Times and The Observer of London first broke the story .
Bannon , a former White House chief strategist and Trump campaign CEO , told CNN last week that he does n't remember purchasing personal information from Facebook while working for the company .
He has said that Democrats have been leveraging social media data for campaign messaging for years but have received little scrutiny . He also said that SCL is separate from Cambridge Analytica and that the company 's `` psychographics , '' referring to personality profiles used to try to predict people 's interest , values , and opinions , were not used during the Trump campaign .
`` Cambridge Analytica is the data scientists and the applied applications here in the United States . It has nothing to do with the international stuff , '' Bannon said at the Financial Times `` Future of News '' event last week .
But four former SCL and Cambridge Analytica employees said the two companies were basically one and the same , sharing resources , holding joint meetings and using similar methodologies .
`` SCL and Cambridge were completely joined at the hip . There is no difference between the two , '' said one former Cambridge Analytica employee who spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity citing fear of retribution .
Wylie said that Bannon 's plans began to solidify in 2014 , when Cambridge Analytica consulted various Republican campaigns and PACs ahead of the midterm elections . The company began to test and apply its psychographics by using Facebook data to model individuals ' personality types in order to understand how to influence them .
Documents show the John Bolton Super PAC , which promoted candidates supported by recently appointed White House national security adviser John Bolton , paid Cambridge Analytical $ 454,700 in 2014 for `` behavioral microtargeting with psychographic messaging . '' Those services included strategies that broke individual voters into `` clusters '' based on what messages would resonate with them .
Wylie also said the company used focus groups and messaging trials in 2014 to test some of the concepts that became core themes of the Trump campaign , such as `` drain the swamp '' and imagery of walls .
`` A lot of the narratives of the Trump campaign were what we were testing in 2014 , '' Wylie said .
He added that Bannon directly presided over much of the company 's initial research .
`` Everything that we were doing ultimately had to be passed up to Bannon for approval , '' said Wylie , who left the company in late 2014 .
Wylie said Bannon would fly to London about once a month for company meetings , and during that time he came to understand Bannon 's ideology .
`` He really liked the idea of using a military-style approach to changing people 's perceptions , '' Wylie said .
Although Cambridge Analytica worked to sharpen its psychographic techniques ahead of the presidential election , former Trump campaign staffers have told CNN they did not buy into those methodologies when the company began consulting for the campaign in the summer of 2016 .
Cambridge Analytica said in statement it did not use Facebook data obtained from GSR during the 2016 presidential election but rather relied on voter files from the Republican National Committee , campaign donor information and other consumer data for its operation .
At a post-election event hosted by Google in December 2016 , Cambridge Analytica 's then-head of product Matt Oczkowski said the pace of the Trump campaign led his company to rely less on personality profiling and instead focus on traditional data services .
`` We did n't really use psychographics that much because we had to walk before we could run , '' Oczkowski said .
Some political consultants and researchers say that despite the attraction of being able to sway voters through messaging based on personality data , the actual effectiveness of psychographics remains questionable .
`` Cambridge Analytica 's approach is massively overhyped just because the word 'psych ' is in it . There 's no compelling scientific evidence that the approach they 're taking is in any part effective , '' said David Rand , a Yale professor of psychology and economics , who studies human behavior .
Whether or not Cambridge Analytica played a significant role in influencing voters or sealing Trump 's victory , Wylie says Bannon 's dream became a reality .
`` He sees this as warfare , so he is going to use as aggressive of techniques as he can get away with , '' Wylie said .
|
(CNN) Long before Donald Trump declared his presidential candidacy, conservative strategist Steve Bannon sought to leverage data-driven technology to push the hearts and minds of voters toward his populist vision for America.
Former Cambridge Analytica staffers tell CNN that Bannon's vision came to fruition through their previous employer, which they described as a weapon of psychological warfare. They say that Cambridge Analytica's parent company had worked on government and military contracts that aimed to change foreign populations' behaviors, which aligned with Bannon's intentions.
Two former employees said that Bannon was personally involved in the company's early stages and that he played a direct role shaping its strategy and goals.
"This was Steve Bannon's baby," said former contractor Christopher Wylie, who described Cambridge Analytica as "Bannon's arsenal of weaponry to wage a culture war on America using military strategies."
Bannon wanted to use the sorts of aggressive messaging tactics usually reserved for geopolitical conflicts to move the US electorate further to the right, Wylie said. He had already directed a series of anti-establishment, conservative documentary films and presided over the far-right website Breitbart News, but Cambridge Analytica would mark another step in his overall ambitions to transform the nation.
With financial backing from hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer, Bannon co-founded Cambridge Analytica in 2013 as the US-branch of Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL) Group, a British company that advertises how it has conducted "behavioral change" programs in more than 60 countries.
Wylie described Cambridge Analytica as "Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer using a foreign, military contractor ... to use some of the same techniques that the military uses ... on the American electorate."
Bannon and Cambridge Analytica did not respond to requests for comment to this story.
SCL Group has consulted numerous government agencies and organizations on psychological operations and strategic messaging since the 1990s. The company has offered clients "research and analysis that yields intervention strategies aimed at specific behaviors," according to its website
That work has included an examination of ways to reduce recruitment into violent jihadist groups in Pakistan in 2009, a communication program aimed at decreasing the number of improvised explosive devices built in Iraq, as well as political consulting throughout sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia and South America, according to SCL documents.
SCL was commissioned to train a psychological operations group that supported the British military, according to a 2012 letter by the group's then-commanding officer.
The US State Department also contracted SCL in 2017 to conduct "target audience research" in order to better understand ISIS radicalization and recruitment. A State Department official told CNN the research included about 100 interviews in Europe and the Middle East.
"SCL's sales pitch essentially was 'Look, we go into foreign countries. We use our tools, our psychographic profiling, to manipulate public opinion.' Ultimately that's what Bannon wanted to do in the United States," said CNN political analyst Joshua Green, whose book 'Devil's Bargain' chronicles Bannon's role in Trump's election.
Cambridge Analytica has come under fire this month for its alleged use of personal data from tens of millions of Facebook users obtained through the company Global Science Research (GSR) without Facebook's permission. The New York Times and The Observer of London first broke the story.
Bannon, a former White House chief strategist and Trump campaign CEO, told CNN last week that he doesn't remember purchasing personal information from Facebook while working for the company.
He has said that Democrats have been leveraging social media data for campaign messaging for years but have received little scrutiny. He also said that SCL is separate from Cambridge Analytica and that the company's "psychographics," referring to personality profiles used to try to predict people's interest, values, and opinions, were not used during the Trump campaign.
"Cambridge Analytica is the data scientists and the applied applications here in the United States. It has nothing to do with the international stuff," Bannon said at the Financial Times "Future of News" event last week.
But four former SCL and Cambridge Analytica employees said the two companies were basically one and the same, sharing resources, holding joint meetings and using similar methodologies.
"SCL and Cambridge were completely joined at the hip. There is no difference between the two," said one former Cambridge Analytica employee who spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity citing fear of retribution.
Wylie said that Bannon's plans began to solidify in 2014, when Cambridge Analytica consulted various Republican campaigns and PACs ahead of the midterm elections. The company began to test and apply its psychographics by using Facebook data to model individuals' personality types in order to understand how to influence them.
Documents show the John Bolton Super PAC, which promoted candidates supported by recently appointed White House national security adviser John Bolton, paid Cambridge Analytical $454,700 in 2014 for "behavioral microtargeting with psychographic messaging." Those services included strategies that broke individual voters into "clusters" based on what messages would resonate with them.
Wylie also said the company used focus groups and messaging trials in 2014 to test some of the concepts that became core themes of the Trump campaign, such as "drain the swamp" and imagery of walls.
"A lot of the narratives of the Trump campaign were what we were testing in 2014," Wylie said.
He added that Bannon directly presided over much of the company's initial research.
"Everything that we were doing ultimately had to be passed up to Bannon for approval," said Wylie, who left the company in late 2014.
Wylie said Bannon would fly to London about once a month for company meetings, and during that time he came to understand Bannon's ideology.
"He really liked the idea of using a military-style approach to changing people's perceptions," Wylie said.
Although Cambridge Analytica worked to sharpen its psychographic techniques ahead of the presidential election, former Trump campaign staffers have told CNN they did not buy into those methodologies when the company began consulting for the campaign in the summer of 2016.
Cambridge Analytica said in statement it did not use Facebook data obtained from GSR during the 2016 presidential election but rather relied on voter files from the Republican National Committee, campaign donor information and other consumer data for its operation.
At a post-election event hosted by Google in December 2016, Cambridge Analytica's then-head of product Matt Oczkowski said the pace of the Trump campaign led his company to rely less on personality profiling and instead focus on traditional data services.
"We didn't really use psychographics that much because we had to walk before we could run," Oczkowski said.
Some political consultants and researchers say that despite the attraction of being able to sway voters through messaging based on personality data, the actual effectiveness of psychographics remains questionable.
"Cambridge Analytica's approach is massively overhyped just because the word 'psych' is in it. There's no compelling scientific evidence that the approach they're taking is in any part effective," said David Rand, a Yale professor of psychology and economics, who studies human behavior.
Whether or not Cambridge Analytica played a significant role in influencing voters or sealing Trump's victory, Wylie says Bannon's dream became a reality.
"He sees this as warfare, so he is going to use as aggressive of techniques as he can get away with," Wylie said.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
ObTdctD1f0cEcM4Q
|
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0202/Gun-debate-Is-price-of-an-armed-America-a-more-dangerous-America-video
|
Gun debate: Is price of an armed America a more dangerous America? (+video)
|
2014-02-02
|
Patrik Jonsson
|
Charles Ingram and Robert Webster were neighbors in Florida , but friends said the two older men had little love for each other and often quarreled . On a spring day in 2010 , the two men , both gun enthusiasts who had state permits to carry concealed weapons , got into another argument across their lawns .
This time , police later said , both men pulled out their weapons . When Mr. Webster began approaching , Mr. Ingram raised his gun , as did Webster . Two shots rang out simultaneously , and both men fell . Webster died almost instantly , Ingram less than a month later .
That `` Deadwood '' -style neighborhood gunfight is one of 555 examples compiled by advocates of gun control detailing how the mere presence of legal guns can turn mundane moments into tragedies – sobering rebuttals against the estimated tens of thousands of times a year Americans brandish guns in self-defense to thwart crimes in progress .
In a country that witnesses bloody gun violence of all kinds on a daily basis , Ingram and Webster were part of a growing cohort , a sort of standing militia of what concealed-carry advocates say are between 8 million and 11 million citizens carrying concealed guns in public in the name of protecting themselves and those around them .
Less than two decades ago , fewer than a million Americans carried concealed weapons , and they were mostly ex-police , ex-military , or owners of cash businesses .
Now , as more states expand open and concealed-gun carry to include bars , churches , airports , and college campuses , such tragedies highlight the life-and-death stakes of living in a more heavily armed America .
Complicating this rise of the concealed gun in America , new research on the psychology of what is called `` embodied cognition '' suggests that simply the act of holding a gun shades one 's perceptions , sometimes at odds with reality .
To opponents of concealed carry , such research suggests that a toxic mix of politics and paranoia , added to 30 ounces of chromed steel tucked legally under a belt at Wal-Mart , ultimately equals a scarier and more dangerous society .
As of January , all 50 states , with various exemptions , allow people without serious criminal records or mental illness to obtain a permit to carry a concealed gun . That expansion of concealed carry coincides with the adoption of a new breed of self-defense laws that give armed citizens more – but not total – legal cover for shooting at fellow Americans .
In a recent paper titled `` Second Amendment Penumbras , '' University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds points to major US Supreme Court decisions , including District of Columbia v. Heller , which in 2008 struck down the city 's ban on handguns , as defining new parameters of self-defense and gun carry .
Until recently , Professor Reynolds writes , `` gun ownership was treated as a suspect ( or perhaps 'deviant ' is a better word ) act – one to be engaged in , if at all , at the actor 's peril . But with gun ownership now recognized as an important constitutional right belonging to all Americans , that deviant characterization can not be correct . ''
Illinois , the last holdout against concealed carry , was forced last year by the courts to allow it . A majority of states now have `` shall issue '' laws in which the state must award a permit if an applicant satisfies written requirements ; other states have `` may issue '' laws that give police the authority to deny license applications .
The debate about whether the surge in public-carry laws heralds the dawn of a neo-Wild West era or simply restores the proper balance to gun rights has been punctuated by a string of incidents involving authorized gun carriers who killed fellow citizens over minor squabbles and preventable misunderstandings .
Florida , a pioneer in the liberalization of gun laws and a state where 1 in 19 people on the street is licensed to carry , has had several notable incidents involving concealed-carry permits in just the past three years : the fatal shooting in January at a Tampa movie theater , in which a well-regarded retired police captain shot a younger man , a father , in an argument involving texting and a thrown bag of popcorn ; the killing of Trayvon Martin , in which a neighborhood watch captain shot the unarmed teenager after profiling him as a `` punk '' and scuffling with him ; and an incident in which a white man with a concealed gun shot and killed a young black man in an argument over loud music ( the shooter said he saw a gun ; none was found ) .
`` I do n't argue that there are no problems with [ concealed-carry permit holders ] , but when you look at the data it 's pretty hard to find any other group in the population that 's as law-abiding as '' permitted gun carriers , says John Lott Jr. , an economist and gun-rights advocate and author of `` More Guns , Less Crime . ''
`` The type of person who 's going to go through the process of getting a concealed-carry permit is not the kind of person you have to worry about , '' he says . `` They 're law-abiding citizens who have a lot to lose if they make a mistake . ''
Statistics support Mr. Lott 's assertion . The number of incidents in which concealed-gun carriers kill innocent people is a fraction of 1 percent of all gun-related homicides . In North Carolina , one of only a handful of states that reveals the identities of permit holders , 200 of the 240,000 concealed carriers ( .08 percent ) committed felonies of all types , including eight shooting deaths , in the five-year period ending in 2011 . This compares with about 2.5 percent of voting-age Americans who have a felony rap sheet , according to The Sentencing Project .
The view of gun carriers as law-abiding citizens seems to have traction and correlates with increasingly positive public attitudes toward concealed carry . In 1999 , an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 73 percent of Americans disapproved of making it easier for people to legally carry concealed weapons . In a Reuters/Ipsos poll last spring , 75 percent favored concealed carry by eligible citizens .
Another possible influence on public attitudes is the notion that an armed society is largely a polite society . Statistics suggest violent crime in the United States has gone down as more citizens either carry guns openly or concealed .
Using data reported by police to the FBI , the National Crime Victimization Survey reports that Americans used guns in self-defense 338,700 times over five years ending in 2011 .
Concealed carry may have a deterrent effect as well . A recent Quinnipiac University study suggests that states with stricter concealed-carry laws have higher murder rates than states that are less restrictive , though it allows there could be other explanations for this difference .
Amplifying that point , a 2004 report by the National Research Council of the National Academies warned `` it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates . ''
Brian Anse Patrick , a University of Toledo professor of communications and longtime concealed-carry permit holder , offers his own anecdotal evidence that concealed carry deters crime . In an interview he said he has personally brandished ( but never fired ) his gun several times to stop a possible crime . One example involved him displaying his handgun to a strange man who ran up to his car in the middle of traffic and began reaching into the back seat . The man backed off when he saw the gun .
The `` popcorn shooting '' at the Tampa movie theater especially agitated pro-gun-control groups , who saw proof that even a gun carrier with decades of threat assessment experience could allow a situation to spiral out of control .
`` Just because you 're a law-abiding citizen today does n't mean you 're going to be one tomorrow , '' says Kristen Rand , legislative director at the Violence Policy Center in Washington , which keeps count of those killed by legal gun carriers in `` non-self-defense '' situations .
`` In a lot of these cases , '' she says , `` a shooter 's life is ruined , an innocent person is dead , and there 's a little girl with no father and a woman with no husband , and all because one guy believed the gun-lobby hype that ' I 'm going to get this gun because someday I might need it . ' ``
The Violence Policy Center also marshals its own statistics on gun ownership and deaths , saying the total numbers of gun deaths , including suicides , are lower in states such as Massachusetts and Hawaii where there are fewer guns per capita than states with higher death rates , such as Louisiana and Wyoming .
For some gun-control advocates , the trend toward concealed carry also raises troubling undercurrents of race and class . They cite words often seen on pro-gun Internet forums – the `` good guy '' versus `` the thug , '' a term that commentators from the blogosphere to the sidelines of the NFL ( Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman ) are calling the `` new N-word . ''
While many new concealed-carry products – clutch holster bags , slimming underwear with holsters – at January 's huge SHOT gun show in Las Vegas were for women , statistics from Arizona and elsewhere suggest it is primarily white men over 30 who are arming up .
Gun-control advocates consequently see the gun-carry movement as populated at least in part by white men who feel politically unempowered and who may be inclined to indulge in displays of extra muscle and power over their fellow citizens .
`` There is a certain psychology at work with some who carry openly or concealed , '' writes columnist Stephen Lemons , in the Phoenix New Times newspaper . `` I have seen it in the nativist camp , where these grizzled old white extremists try to provoke their enemies with guns on their hips , itching to blast someone . ''
While that may be harsh , even some concealed-carry proponents see a strain of disturbing behavior among some carriers .
`` Acting like a deadly threat is imminent , walking around stores jerking your head around ... 'on a swivel , ' planning your tactical movement from the gas pump to the cash register IS paranoid behavior , unless you live in Fallujah , '' writes one permit holder on a concealed-carry Internet forum . `` Acting like every situation involves a critical threat is goofy .... Do n't confuse life with movies . ''
Perhaps contributing to such confusion , guns can change people 's perceptions at even deeper levels , according to recent research at the University of Notre Dame psychology department . The researchers had to get special permission from campus police to use replicas of handguns in a study that found that people holding a gun are more likely than those holding a ball to perceive objects in other people 's hands as guns .
`` Carrying a firearm changes what you can do in the world ... and that could potentially change the way you perceive and interact with people in the world , '' says James Brockmole , a Notre Dame psychology professor whose research has established a link between gun handling and `` embodied cognition , '' the theory that objects encountered by the body unconsciously influence behavior . `` People pay attention to the world differently if they 're armed . ''
However persuasive the recent instances of gun violence have been for gun-control proponents , they have n't changed dramatic trend lines in attitudes and gun ownership in America , which George Washington University law professor Bob Cottrol says has always been at least symbolically an armed society .
More than 300 million guns are distributed among about 40 percent of US households .
Since 9/11 , the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2003 , and the social breakdown in New Orleans after Katrina , Americans have put aside post-Prohibition distrust of public gun carry and embraced the idea of it .
Surprisingly to some , 91 percent of 15,000 police officers polled recently by the PoliceOne organization also said they support citizens ' ability to carry concealed weapons .
And while gun carry has always been popular in rural America , the current wave of concealed-carry seekers is largely urban professionals , says the University of Toledo 's Professor Patrick .
Since the late 1990s no major federal anti-gun legislation has passed . Even the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown , Conn. , in 2012 , in which 20 schoolchildren and six adult staff were killed , could not help President Obama and Democrats in Congress push through what they called `` common-sense gun-safety reforms . ''
That failure last spring again drew attention to the National Rifle Association 's ability to lobby lawmakers on a scale and intensity that pro-gun-control forces , even with the deep pockets of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg , could not match .
The NRA has long supported expanded concealed-carry laws , as well as anonymity for carriers . The nation 's first recipient of a `` shall issue '' concealed-carry permit went to Marion Hammer , the NRA 's longtime Florida lobbyist , after Florida passed its pioneering law in 1987 .
While some states – notably Colorado , New York , and Connecticut – have tightened gun laws since Sandy Hook , most gun-related legislation in the states has decreased the barriers to carrying firearms in public .
That development has created some strange legislative bedfellows . Georgia Carry , a pro-gun group , lobbied last year to remove a rule banning anyone with a prior marijuana misdemeanor conviction from ever getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Georgia .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
Lots of otherwise law-abiding middle-aged men were being denied gun-carry rights because of a commonplace youthful indiscretion , says Jerry Henry , the group 's director .
`` I personally do n't understand why everybody 's so scared of [ guns ] , '' he says . `` They do n't do anything by themselves . ''
|
Charles Ingram and Robert Webster were neighbors in Florida, but friends said the two older men had little love for each other and often quarreled. On a spring day in 2010, the two men, both gun enthusiasts who had state permits to carry concealed weapons, got into another argument across their lawns.
This time, police later said, both men pulled out their weapons. When Mr. Webster began approaching, Mr. Ingram raised his gun, as did Webster. Two shots rang out simultaneously, and both men fell. Webster died almost instantly, Ingram less than a month later.
That "Deadwood"-style neighborhood gunfight is one of 555 examples compiled by advocates of gun control detailing how the mere presence of legal guns can turn mundane moments into tragedies – sobering rebuttals against the estimated tens of thousands of times a year Americans brandish guns in self-defense to thwart crimes in progress.
In a country that witnesses bloody gun violence of all kinds on a daily basis, Ingram and Webster were part of a growing cohort, a sort of standing militia of what concealed-carry advocates say are between 8 million and 11 million citizens carrying concealed guns in public in the name of protecting themselves and those around them.
Less than two decades ago, fewer than a million Americans carried concealed weapons, and they were mostly ex-police, ex-military, or owners of cash businesses.
Now, as more states expand open and concealed-gun carry to include bars, churches, airports, and college campuses, such tragedies highlight the life-and-death stakes of living in a more heavily armed America.
Complicating this rise of the concealed gun in America, new research on the psychology of what is called "embodied cognition" suggests that simply the act of holding a gun shades one's perceptions, sometimes at odds with reality.
To opponents of concealed carry, such research suggests that a toxic mix of politics and paranoia, added to 30 ounces of chromed steel tucked legally under a belt at Wal-Mart, ultimately equals a scarier and more dangerous society.
The legal right to shoot
As of January, all 50 states, with various exemptions, allow people without serious criminal records or mental illness to obtain a permit to carry a concealed gun. That expansion of concealed carry coincides with the adoption of a new breed of self-defense laws that give armed citizens more – but not total – legal cover for shooting at fellow Americans.
In a recent paper titled "Second Amendment Penumbras," University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds points to major US Supreme Court decisions, including District of Columbia v. Heller, which in 2008 struck down the city's ban on handguns, as defining new parameters of self-defense and gun carry.
Until recently, Professor Reynolds writes, "gun ownership was treated as a suspect (or perhaps 'deviant' is a better word) act – one to be engaged in, if at all, at the actor's peril. But with gun ownership now recognized as an important constitutional right belonging to all Americans, that deviant characterization cannot be correct."
Illinois, the last holdout against concealed carry, was forced last year by the courts to allow it. A majority of states now have "shall issue" laws in which the state must award a permit if an applicant satisfies written requirements; other states have "may issue" laws that give police the authority to deny license applications.
The debate about whether the surge in public-carry laws heralds the dawn of a neo-Wild West era or simply restores the proper balance to gun rights has been punctuated by a string of incidents involving authorized gun carriers who killed fellow citizens over minor squabbles and preventable misunderstandings.
Florida, a pioneer in the liberalization of gun laws and a state where 1 in 19 people on the street is licensed to carry, has had several notable incidents involving concealed-carry permits in just the past three years: the fatal shooting in January at a Tampa movie theater, in which a well-regarded retired police captain shot a younger man, a father, in an argument involving texting and a thrown bag of popcorn; the killing of Trayvon Martin, in which a neighborhood watch captain shot the unarmed teenager after profiling him as a "punk" and scuffling with him; and an incident in which a white man with a concealed gun shot and killed a young black man in an argument over loud music (the shooter said he saw a gun; none was found).
Arguments for concealed carry
"I don't argue that there are no problems with [concealed-carry permit holders], but when you look at the data it's pretty hard to find any other group in the population that's as law-abiding as" permitted gun carriers, says John Lott Jr., an economist and gun-rights advocate and author of "More Guns, Less Crime."
"The type of person who's going to go through the process of getting a concealed-carry permit is not the kind of person you have to worry about," he says. "They're law-abiding citizens who have a lot to lose if they make a mistake."
Statistics support Mr. Lott's assertion. The number of incidents in which concealed-gun carriers kill innocent people is a fraction of 1 percent of all gun-related homicides. In North Carolina, one of only a handful of states that reveals the identities of permit holders, 200 of the 240,000 concealed carriers (.08 percent) committed felonies of all types, including eight shooting deaths, in the five-year period ending in 2011. This compares with about 2.5 percent of voting-age Americans who have a felony rap sheet, according to The Sentencing Project.
The view of gun carriers as law-abiding citizens seems to have traction and correlates with increasingly positive public attitudes toward concealed carry. In 1999, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 73 percent of Americans disapproved of making it easier for people to legally carry concealed weapons. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll last spring, 75 percent favored concealed carry by eligible citizens.
Another possible influence on public attitudes is the notion that an armed society is largely a polite society. Statistics suggest violent crime in the United States has gone down as more citizens either carry guns openly or concealed.
Using data reported by police to the FBI, the National Crime Victimization Survey reports that Americans used guns in self-defense 338,700 times over five years ending in 2011.
Concealed carry may have a deterrent effect as well. A recent Quinnipiac University study suggests that states with stricter concealed-carry laws have higher murder rates than states that are less restrictive, though it allows there could be other explanations for this difference.
Amplifying that point, a 2004 report by the National Research Council of the National Academies warned "it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates."
Brian Anse Patrick, a University of Toledo professor of communications and longtime concealed-carry permit holder, offers his own anecdotal evidence that concealed carry deters crime. In an interview he said he has personally brandished (but never fired) his gun several times to stop a possible crime. One example involved him displaying his handgun to a strange man who ran up to his car in the middle of traffic and began reaching into the back seat. The man backed off when he saw the gun.
Arguments against
The "popcorn shooting" at the Tampa movie theater especially agitated pro-gun-control groups, who saw proof that even a gun carrier with decades of threat assessment experience could allow a situation to spiral out of control.
"Just because you're a law-abiding citizen today doesn't mean you're going to be one tomorrow," says Kristen Rand, legislative director at the Violence Policy Center in Washington, which keeps count of those killed by legal gun carriers in "non-self-defense" situations.
"In a lot of these cases," she says, "a shooter's life is ruined, an innocent person is dead, and there's a little girl with no father and a woman with no husband, and all because one guy believed the gun-lobby hype that 'I'm going to get this gun because someday I might need it.' "
The Violence Policy Center also marshals its own statistics on gun ownership and deaths, saying the total numbers of gun deaths, including suicides, are lower in states such as Massachusetts and Hawaii where there are fewer guns per capita than states with higher death rates, such as Louisiana and Wyoming.
For some gun-control advocates, the trend toward concealed carry also raises troubling undercurrents of race and class. They cite words often seen on pro-gun Internet forums – the "good guy" versus "the thug," a term that commentators from the blogosphere to the sidelines of the NFL (Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman) are calling the "new N-word."
While many new concealed-carry products – clutch holster bags, slimming underwear with holsters – at January's huge SHOT gun show in Las Vegas were for women, statistics from Arizona and elsewhere suggest it is primarily white men over 30 who are arming up.
Gun-control advocates consequently see the gun-carry movement as populated at least in part by white men who feel politically unempowered and who may be inclined to indulge in displays of extra muscle and power over their fellow citizens.
"There is a certain psychology at work with some who carry openly or concealed," writes columnist Stephen Lemons, in the Phoenix New Times newspaper. "I have seen it in the nativist camp, where these grizzled old white extremists try to provoke their enemies with guns on their hips, itching to blast someone."
While that may be harsh, even some concealed-carry proponents see a strain of disturbing behavior among some carriers.
"Acting like a deadly threat is imminent, walking around stores jerking your head around ... 'on a swivel,' planning your tactical movement from the gas pump to the cash register IS paranoid behavior, unless you live in Fallujah," writes one permit holder on a concealed-carry Internet forum. "Acting like every situation involves a critical threat is goofy.... Don't confuse life with movies."
Perhaps contributing to such confusion, guns can change people's perceptions at even deeper levels, according to recent research at the University of Notre Dame psychology department. The researchers had to get special permission from campus police to use replicas of handguns in a study that found that people holding a gun are more likely than those holding a ball to perceive objects in other people's hands as guns.
"Carrying a firearm changes what you can do in the world ... and that could potentially change the way you perceive and interact with people in the world," says James Brockmole, a Notre Dame psychology professor whose research has established a link between gun handling and "embodied cognition," the theory that objects encountered by the body unconsciously influence behavior. "People pay attention to the world differently if they're armed."
Where we're going
However persuasive the recent instances of gun violence have been for gun-control proponents, they haven't changed dramatic trend lines in attitudes and gun ownership in America, which George Washington University law professor Bob Cottrol says has always been at least symbolically an armed society.
More than 300 million guns are distributed among about 40 percent of US households.
Since 9/11, the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2003, and the social breakdown in New Orleans after Katrina, Americans have put aside post-Prohibition distrust of public gun carry and embraced the idea of it.
Surprisingly to some, 91 percent of 15,000 police officers polled recently by the PoliceOne organization also said they support citizens' ability to carry concealed weapons.
And while gun carry has always been popular in rural America, the current wave of concealed-carry seekers is largely urban professionals, says the University of Toledo's Professor Patrick.
Since the late 1990s no major federal anti-gun legislation has passed. Even the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Conn., in 2012, in which 20 schoolchildren and six adult staff were killed, could not help President Obama and Democrats in Congress push through what they called "common-sense gun-safety reforms."
That failure last spring again drew attention to the National Rifle Association's ability to lobby lawmakers on a scale and intensity that pro-gun-control forces, even with the deep pockets of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, could not match.
The NRA has long supported expanded concealed-carry laws, as well as anonymity for carriers. The nation's first recipient of a "shall issue" concealed-carry permit went to Marion Hammer, the NRA's longtime Florida lobbyist, after Florida passed its pioneering law in 1987.
While some states – notably Colorado, New York, and Connecticut – have tightened gun laws since Sandy Hook, most gun-related legislation in the states has decreased the barriers to carrying firearms in public.
That development has created some strange legislative bedfellows. Georgia Carry, a pro-gun group, lobbied last year to remove a rule banning anyone with a prior marijuana misdemeanor conviction from ever getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Georgia.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
Lots of otherwise law-abiding middle-aged men were being denied gun-carry rights because of a commonplace youthful indiscretion, says Jerry Henry, the group's director.
"I personally don't understand why everybody's so scared of [guns]," he says. "They don't do anything by themselves."
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
Zv7gKW2t4ZRNDhlC
|
media_bias
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/18/roger-ailes-dead-fox-news-ceo-chairman
|
Roger Ailes, former Fox News chairman and CEO, dies age 77
|
2017-05-18
|
Amanda Holpuch, Dominic Rushe, Mark Sweney, Arwa Mahdawi, Richard Wolffe
|
Family announces death of channel ’ s ousted founder and former presidential adviser , a key force in shaping contemporary media and politics
Roger Ailes , the controversial , visionary founder of Fox News who was forced out of the company amid a sexual harassment scandal , has died aged 77 .
Ailes , a former presidential adviser , joined the network in 1996 , building it into the major conservative force in American politics , a profits powerhouse for Rupert Murdoch ’ s 21st Century Fox and a company now mired in scandal .
Fox News ( @ FoxNews ) Breaking News : Former Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes has died , his family announced . pic.twitter.com/AksPdNSZaI
“ I am profoundly sad and heartbroken to report that my husband , Roger Ailes , passed away this morning , ” said his wife , Elizabeth Ailes , in a statement published on the Drudge Report .
“ Roger was a loving husband to me , to his son Zachary , and a loyal friend to many . He was also a patriot , profoundly grateful to live in a country that gave him so much opportunity to work hard , to rise – and to give back . ”
Palm Beach county medical examiner ’ s office said Ailes died of a subdural hematoma — or bleeding on the brain — caused by an earlier fall in the bathroom of his Florida home . The death has been ruled accidental .
Arguably no contemporary figure has shaped media and politics as profoundly as Ailes . A successful local TV producer who went on to become a key adviser to a succession of Republican presidents , he jumped at the chance to lead Fox News when the service was launched in 1996 .
In a statement , Murdoch called Ailes a “ brilliant broadcaster ” . He said : “ Roger and I shared a big idea which he executed in a way no one else could have . In addition , Roger was a great patriot who never ceased fighting for his beliefs . At 21st Century Fox we will always be enormously grateful for the great business he built . Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Elizabeth and son Zachary . ”
Ailes advised presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon , with whom he once plotted to bring Republican news to television . After his exit from Fox last year he was briefly an adviser to Donald Trump ’ s election campaign .
President George HW Bush was among those who paid tribute on twitter .
George Bush ( @ GeorgeHWBush ) He was n't perfect , but Roger Ailes was my friend & I loved him . Not sure I would have been President w/o his great talent , loyal help . RIP .
David Folkenflik , NPR ’ s media correspondent and author of Murdoch ’ s World : The Last of the Old Media Empires , called Ailes a “ a towering and twisty figure with a very complicated legacy ” .
Ailes ’ s “ intentional collision of politics and TV ” redefined broadcast journalism . He “ had a willful disregard of where lines should be drawn , ” and he “ denigrated the work of others in the same field ” , Folkenflik said . There has been real journalism at Fox News , he said , “ but that was never the point of the network ” .
“ Ailes provided the mirror for the distorted image that many conservatives had of how the mainstream media worked . This was enormously successful financially ; it was enormously successful at morphing Republican party politics . His successes allowed for his excesses . ... You can not understand this scandal [ that led to his ousting ] without understanding the paranoid and punitive atmosphere he created inside Fox News , ” said Folkenflik .
His shocking departure from Fox News in July 2016 , after two decades of leadership , signaled the end of an era for the network , which has been in turmoil ever since .
Ailes was forced out following allegations that he sexually harassed employees including the former host Gretchen Carlson , who alleged in a lawsuit that Ailes fired her after she refused to have sex with him . She worked at the network for 11 years , and said during that time , Ailes subjected her to “ severe and pervasive sexual harassment ” .
Ailes reportedly received a $ 40m payout for his departure and was to remain as a consultant to the network through 2018 .
The departure of Ailes was followed later by that of his star presenter Bill O ’ Reilly , also forced out over claims of sexual harassment , which he denies .
Douglas Wigdor , a lawyer representing 21 alleged victims of racial and sexual harassment at 21st Century Fox , said that Ailes ’ passing would not affect the legal process .
“ In terms of our cases , I don ’ t see his sudden passing having any impact as , to the extent relevant , our clients will still be able to testify about his conduct , which presumably will be more difficult for Fox News to counter given that his testimony was not secured by sworn testimony to date . ”
The harassment scandal cast a shadow over Murdoch ’ s £11.7bn takeover bid for Sky , the British television network . His attempt to acquire Sky in 2011 was thwarted amid the phone hacking scandal .
Wigdor travelled to London last week to meet with the British media regulator , Ofcom , which is investigating whether Murdoch and 21st Century Fox are “ fit and proper ” owners of Sky .
Wigdor said that Ofcom could only properly consider the company ’ s fitness if Fox waived gagging orders on victims and allowed them to speak to the UK media regulator .
Though Ailes left Fox in disgrace , network hosts honored the former chairman on-air through the morning broadcasts .
“ Many people out there would say that he saved this country by starting the Fox News channel , ” said the Fox and Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt , who cried as she paid tribute to Ailes .
“ Roger gave every single one of us on this couch an opportunity . He put food on our table , and you know , he went out in such a sad way – but who doesn ’ t have sins ? We all have our sins , we all have our cross to bear , and Roger , I will love you forever . ”
Shortly after Ailes ’ s death was announced , the Fox News host Bill Hemmer said : “ This is not an easy day . ”
Hemmer , with his co-host Shannon Bream , discussed how much Ailes “ loved this country ” and recalled how Ailes would invite Fox News employees to his house in the Hudson Valley . “ And we would stand and salute the flag , and that is how the evenings began at Roger ’ s house , ” he said .
|
Family announces death of channel’s ousted founder and former presidential adviser, a key force in shaping contemporary media and politics
This article is more than 2 years old
This article is more than 2 years old
Roger Ailes, the controversial, visionary founder of Fox News who was forced out of the company amid a sexual harassment scandal, has died aged 77.
Ailes, a former presidential adviser, joined the network in 1996, building it into the major conservative force in American politics, a profits powerhouse for Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox and a company now mired in scandal.
Fox News (@FoxNews) Breaking News: Former Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes has died, his family announced. pic.twitter.com/AksPdNSZaI
“I am profoundly sad and heartbroken to report that my husband, Roger Ailes, passed away this morning,” said his wife, Elizabeth Ailes, in a statement published on the Drudge Report.
“Roger was a loving husband to me, to his son Zachary, and a loyal friend to many. He was also a patriot, profoundly grateful to live in a country that gave him so much opportunity to work hard, to rise – and to give back.”
Palm Beach county medical examiner’s office said Ailes died of a subdural hematoma — or bleeding on the brain — caused by an earlier fall in the bathroom of his Florida home. The death has been ruled accidental.
Arguably no contemporary figure has shaped media and politics as profoundly as Ailes. A successful local TV producer who went on to become a key adviser to a succession of Republican presidents, he jumped at the chance to lead Fox News when the service was launched in 1996.
In a statement, Murdoch called Ailes a “brilliant broadcaster”. He said: “Roger and I shared a big idea which he executed in a way no one else could have. In addition, Roger was a great patriot who never ceased fighting for his beliefs. At 21st Century Fox we will always be enormously grateful for the great business he built. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Elizabeth and son Zachary.”
Ailes advised presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, with whom he once plotted to bring Republican news to television. After his exit from Fox last year he was briefly an adviser to Donald Trump’s election campaign.
President George HW Bush was among those who paid tribute on twitter.
George Bush (@GeorgeHWBush) He wasn't perfect, but Roger Ailes was my friend & I loved him. Not sure I would have been President w/o his great talent, loyal help. RIP.
David Folkenflik, NPR’s media correspondent and author of Murdoch’s World: The Last of the Old Media Empires, called Ailes a “a towering and twisty figure with a very complicated legacy”.
Ailes’s “intentional collision of politics and TV” redefined broadcast journalism. He “had a willful disregard of where lines should be drawn,” and he “denigrated the work of others in the same field”, Folkenflik said. There has been real journalism at Fox News, he said, “but that was never the point of the network”.
“Ailes provided the mirror for the distorted image that many conservatives had of how the mainstream media worked. This was enormously successful financially; it was enormously successful at morphing Republican party politics. His successes allowed for his excesses. ... You cannot understand this scandal [that led to his ousting] without understanding the paranoid and punitive atmosphere he created inside Fox News,” said Folkenflik.
His shocking departure from Fox News in July 2016, after two decades of leadership, signaled the end of an era for the network, which has been in turmoil ever since.
Ailes was forced out following allegations that he sexually harassed employees including the former host Gretchen Carlson, who alleged in a lawsuit that Ailes fired her after she refused to have sex with him. She worked at the network for 11 years, and said during that time, Ailes subjected her to “severe and pervasive sexual harassment”.
He denied all allegations.
Ailes reportedly received a $40m payout for his departure and was to remain as a consultant to the network through 2018.
The departure of Ailes was followed later by that of his star presenter Bill O’Reilly, also forced out over claims of sexual harassment, which he denies.
Douglas Wigdor, a lawyer representing 21 alleged victims of racial and sexual harassment at 21st Century Fox, said that Ailes’ passing would not affect the legal process.
“In terms of our cases, I don’t see his sudden passing having any impact as, to the extent relevant, our clients will still be able to testify about his conduct, which presumably will be more difficult for Fox News to counter given that his testimony was not secured by sworn testimony to date.”
The harassment scandal cast a shadow over Murdoch’s £11.7bn takeover bid for Sky, the British television network. His attempt to acquire Sky in 2011 was thwarted amid the phone hacking scandal.
Wigdor travelled to London last week to meet with the British media regulator, Ofcom, which is investigating whether Murdoch and 21st Century Fox are “fit and proper” owners of Sky.
Wigdor said that Ofcom could only properly consider the company’s fitness if Fox waived gagging orders on victims and allowed them to speak to the UK media regulator.
Though Ailes left Fox in disgrace, network hosts honored the former chairman on-air through the morning broadcasts.
“Many people out there would say that he saved this country by starting the Fox News channel,” said the Fox and Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt, who cried as she paid tribute to Ailes.
“Roger gave every single one of us on this couch an opportunity. He put food on our table, and you know, he went out in such a sad way – but who doesn’t have sins? We all have our sins, we all have our cross to bear, and Roger, I will love you forever.”
Shortly after Ailes’s death was announced, the Fox News host Bill Hemmer said: “This is not an easy day.”
Hemmer, with his co-host Shannon Bream, discussed how much Ailes “loved this country” and recalled how Ailes would invite Fox News employees to his house in the Hudson Valley. “And we would stand and salute the flag, and that is how the evenings began at Roger’s house,” he said.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
xaP65wx92QsIZ1SL
|
immigration
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
https://www.newsmax.com/headline/republicans-daca-deal-trump/2018/01/14/id/837080/
|
Republicans See Possible DACA Deal Despite Trump's Twitter Posts
|
2018-01-14
|
Chris Strohm, Ben Brody
|
Republicans held out hope that a deal can be reached allowing young undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. , despite President Donald Trump saying the effort is “ probably dead ” amid growing tensions about keeping the government funded past Friday .
Trump escalated his rhetoric on immigration in a pair of early-morning Sunday Twitter messages that appeared to move away from what a few days ago seemed to be a potential deal with Democrats and moderate Republicans on legislation to continue the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program .
“ DACA is probably dead because the Democrats don ’ t really want it , they just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our Military , ” Trump tweeted on Sunday from Florida , where he ’ s spending the weekend at his club .
“ I , as President , want people coming into our Country who are going to help us become strong and great again , people coming in through a system based on MERIT . No more Lotteries ! ” Trump said . His comments followed four tweets on the same topic on Saturday .
The immigration debate involving young undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children and Trump ’ s demand for funding to build a wall on the southern U.S. border is playing out days before a potential government shutdown as soon as the end of this week .
Shortly after Trump ’ s tweets , he was contradicted by key Senate Republicans and even his own Homeland Security Secretary , Kirstjen Nielsen , who said on “ Fox News Sunday ” that there ’ s still hope for a solution if Democrats would agree to close immigration loopholes .
“ I do not believe DACA is dead , ” Nielsen said . She said the Trump administration and congressional Republicans want “ a security-immigration deal. ” She also said it would be “ completely irresponsible ” for Democrats to demand that a deal be tied to keeping the government funded .
Republican Senator David Perdue of Georgia also expressed optimism on ABC ’ s “ This Week ” about finding a fix for DACA , but only if “ the Democrats get serious about negotiating ” on securing U.S. borders and family reunification or “ chain migration . ”
Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona , also a Republican , said senators from both parties support a proposed compromise on legislation that he has helped write .
“ We ’ re working now to add more Republicans to that list , and we will have more this coming week , ” Flake said on ABC . He said his bill was the only way to get the 60 votes required for passage in the Senate .
Flake also rejected the president ’ s claim that “ Democrats don ’ t really want ” a deal . “ I ’ ve been negotiating and working with the Democrats on immigration for 17 years , ” he said . “ The Democrats are negotiating in good faith . ”
The immigration debate is taking place against a backdrop of controversy after Trump reportedly called Haiti , El Salvador and African nations “ shithole countries ” during an Oval Office meeting with senators . Trump denied making the comment in a Twitter posting on Friday , although the White House didn ’ t dispute the quotations after they were widely reported on Thursday . Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois , the second-ranking Democrat , said the denial was “ not true . ”
Perdue of Georgia attended the meeting and called the comments as reported “ a gross misrepresentation. ” “ He did not use that word , ” said Perdue , a top ally of Trump . Nielsen was also in the meeting but said she didn ’ t recall that specific phrase being used .
Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas also said on CBS ’ s “ Face the Nation ” that he didn ’ t hear Trump use the word in the meeting , and that Durbin “ has misrepresented what happened in White House meetings before . ”
An email message seeing comment was left with Durbin ’ s office . Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on Twitter that to impugn Durbin ’ s integrity was “ disgraceful , ” and that “ whether you agree with him on the issues or not , he is one of the most honorable members of the Senate . ”
Flake said he was in a meeting immediately following the one in which the president made the alleged comments , with some of the same participants . “ They said those words were used before those words went public , ” Flake said .
Asked on CNN whether Trump ’ s comments were racist , Republican Representative Mia Love of Utah , a child of Haitian immigrants , paused and said , “ yes. ” She also said , “ I can ’ t defend the indefensible . ”
But Love , who ’ s called on Trump to apologize , said the episode can ’ t derail efforts to address DACA and leave families in limbo .
“ The worst thing that can happen right now is for there not to be a fix at all , ” Love said on “ State of the Union. ” “ We need to make sure that both sides aren ’ t using this for political gain and we do our job and fix this issue . ”
Less than a week ago Trump said during a televised , bipartisan meeting with lawmakers that he wanted a “ bill of love ” on immigration . He appeared to endorse a “ clean DACA ” bill sought by Democrats .
Since then , a hard-right flank of the Republican Party , led by White House senior adviser Stephen Miller and Cotton , pulled the president back from the center .
Even so , 70 percent of Americans favor continuing DACA , including a slim majority of Trump ’ s backers , according to a CBS News/YouGov poll released Sunday . In follow-up polling , 76 percent said Trump ’ s comments on U.S. immigration from Africa and Haiti were inappropriate .
Republican Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado said he still thinks a deal can be struck . While some members of both parties may want to continue fighting , “ that ’ s not where a lot of the Democrats that I ’ ve been working with are , that ’ s not where the Republicans that I ’ ve been working with are . Where we are is trying to find a real solution , ” Gardner said on CBS ’ s “ Face the Nation . ”
|
Republicans held out hope that a deal can be reached allowing young undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S., despite President Donald Trump saying the effort is “probably dead” amid growing tensions about keeping the government funded past Friday.
Trump escalated his rhetoric on immigration in a pair of early-morning Sunday Twitter messages that appeared to move away from what a few days ago seemed to be a potential deal with Democrats and moderate Republicans on legislation to continue the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
“DACA is probably dead because the Democrats don’t really want it, they just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our Military,” Trump tweeted on Sunday from Florida, where he’s spending the weekend at his club.
“I, as President, want people coming into our Country who are going to help us become strong and great again, people coming in through a system based on MERIT. No more Lotteries!” Trump said. His comments followed four tweets on the same topic on Saturday.
The immigration debate involving young undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children and Trump’s demand for funding to build a wall on the southern U.S. border is playing out days before a potential government shutdown as soon as the end of this week.
Trump Contradicted
Shortly after Trump’s tweets, he was contradicted by key Senate Republicans and even his own Homeland Security Secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, who said on “Fox News Sunday” that there’s still hope for a solution if Democrats would agree to close immigration loopholes.
“I do not believe DACA is dead,” Nielsen said. She said the Trump administration and congressional Republicans want “a security-immigration deal.” She also said it would be “completely irresponsible” for Democrats to demand that a deal be tied to keeping the government funded.
Republican Senator David Perdue of Georgia also expressed optimism on ABC’s “This Week” about finding a fix for DACA, but only if “the Democrats get serious about negotiating” on securing U.S. borders and family reunification or “chain migration.”
‘Good Faith’ Democrats
Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, also a Republican, said senators from both parties support a proposed compromise on legislation that he has helped write.
“We’re working now to add more Republicans to that list, and we will have more this coming week,” Flake said on ABC. He said his bill was the only way to get the 60 votes required for passage in the Senate.
Flake also rejected the president’s claim that “Democrats don’t really want” a deal. “I’ve been negotiating and working with the Democrats on immigration for 17 years,” he said. “The Democrats are negotiating in good faith.”
The immigration debate is taking place against a backdrop of controversy after Trump reportedly called Haiti, El Salvador and African nations “shithole countries” during an Oval Office meeting with senators. Trump denied making the comment in a Twitter posting on Friday, although the White House didn’t dispute the quotations after they were widely reported on Thursday. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, said the denial was “not true.”
Perdue of Georgia attended the meeting and called the comments as reported “a gross misrepresentation.” “He did not use that word,” said Perdue, a top ally of Trump. Nielsen was also in the meeting but said she didn’t recall that specific phrase being used.
Cotton Comments
Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas also said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that he didn’t hear Trump use the word in the meeting, and that Durbin “has misrepresented what happened in White House meetings before.”
An email message seeing comment was left with Durbin’s office. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on Twitter that to impugn Durbin’s integrity was “disgraceful,” and that “whether you agree with him on the issues or not, he is one of the most honorable members of the Senate.”
Flake said he was in a meeting immediately following the one in which the president made the alleged comments, with some of the same participants. “They said those words were used before those words went public,” Flake said.
Asked on CNN whether Trump’s comments were racist, Republican Representative Mia Love of Utah, a child of Haitian immigrants, paused and said, “yes.” She also said, “I can’t defend the indefensible.”
Can’t Derail Process
But Love, who’s called on Trump to apologize, said the episode can’t derail efforts to address DACA and leave families in limbo.
“The worst thing that can happen right now is for there not to be a fix at all,” Love said on “State of the Union.” “We need to make sure that both sides aren’t using this for political gain and we do our job and fix this issue.”
Less than a week ago Trump said during a televised, bipartisan meeting with lawmakers that he wanted a “bill of love” on immigration. He appeared to endorse a “clean DACA” bill sought by Democrats.
Since then, a hard-right flank of the Republican Party, led by White House senior adviser Stephen Miller and Cotton, pulled the president back from the center.
Even so, 70 percent of Americans favor continuing DACA, including a slim majority of Trump’s backers, according to a CBS News/YouGov poll released Sunday. In follow-up polling, 76 percent said Trump’s comments on U.S. immigration from Africa and Haiti were inappropriate.
Republican Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado said he still thinks a deal can be struck. While some members of both parties may want to continue fighting, “that’s not where a lot of the Democrats that I’ve been working with are, that’s not where the Republicans that I’ve been working with are. Where we are is trying to find a real solution,” Gardner said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
uWP5jdLm85GxrHdr
|
us_congress
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/05/susan-rice-susan-collins-2020-876185
|
Susan Rice suggests she would consider running against Collins
|
2018-10-05
|
Rebecca Morin
|
Susan Rice on Friday appeared to toy with a possible Senate run against Susan Collins after the Maine Republican announced her support for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh .
Rice , who served as President Barack Obama ’ s national security adviser responded to a tweet calling on someone to challenge Collins .
Jen Psaki , who served as Obama ’ s communications director and is now vice president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace , tweeted : “ who wants to run for Senate in Maine ? there will be an army of supporters with you . ”
Rice later clarified her tweet saying she is “ not making any announcements ” about a possible campaign run .
“ Many thanks for the encourgement [ sic ] . I ’ m not making any announcements , ” she wrote online . “ Like so many Americans , I am deeply disappointed in Senator Collins ’ vote for Kavanaugh . Maine and America deserve better . ”
Sign up here for ███ Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox . Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply .
Collins laid out her reasons for supporting Kavanaugh in a more than 40-minute speech on the Senate floor . She said the judge would be a good fit for the nation 's highest court , and outlined inconsistencies in sexual assault allegations against him . Her support for Kavanaugh all but assured his confirmation since she was a key swing vote .
Rice ’ s grandparents emigrated from Jamaica to Portland , Maine . Earlier this year , she received an honorary degree from Bowdoin College , which is located Brunswick , Maine .
Os opponents of Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation have been raising money through a crowdfunding website , Crowdpac , and said they would donate the money to an opponent to Collins in 2020 if she voted to confirm Kavanaugh .
The Maine senator might not be the only one who will face a new challenger .
Former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin also hinted that she would challenge Sen. Lisa Murkowski after the senator voted “ no ” on a procedural vote to advance Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation to a final vote .
Murkowski was another swing vote that could determine whether the judge would be confirmed .
“ Hey @ LisaMurkowski - I can see 2022 from my house ... ” Palin tweeted .
|
On Friday, Susan Rice responded to the tweet, “who wants to run for Senate in Maine? there will be an army of supporters with you,” by tweeting, “me.” | Win McNamee/Getty Images Congress Susan Rice suggests she would consider running against Collins
Susan Rice on Friday appeared to toy with a possible Senate run against Susan Collins after the Maine Republican announced her support for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Rice, who served as President Barack Obama’s national security adviser responded to a tweet calling on someone to challenge Collins.
Story Continued Below
Jen Psaki, who served as Obama’s communications director and is now vice president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, tweeted: “who wants to run for Senate in Maine? there will be an army of supporters with you.”
Eleven minutes later, Rice had a simple response.
“Me.”
Rice later clarified her tweet saying she is “not making any announcements” about a possible campaign run.
“Many thanks for the encourgement [sic]. I’m not making any announcements,” she wrote online. “Like so many Americans, I am deeply disappointed in Senator Collins’ vote for Kavanaugh. Maine and America deserve better.”
Sign up here for POLITICO Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Collins laid out her reasons for supporting Kavanaugh in a more than 40-minute speech on the Senate floor. She said the judge would be a good fit for the nation's highest court, and outlined inconsistencies in sexual assault allegations against him. Her support for Kavanaugh all but assured his confirmation since she was a key swing vote.
Rice’s grandparents emigrated from Jamaica to Portland, Maine. Earlier this year, she received an honorary degree from Bowdoin College, which is located Brunswick, Maine.
Os opponents of Kavanaugh’s confirmation have been raising money through a crowdfunding website, Crowdpac, and said they would donate the money to an opponent to Collins in 2020 if she voted to confirm Kavanaugh.
The website reportedly crashed after Collins’ speech.
The Maine senator might not be the only one who will face a new challenger.
Former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin also hinted that she would challenge Sen. Lisa Murkowski after the senator voted “no” on a procedural vote to advance Kavanaugh’s confirmation to a final vote.
Murkowski was another swing vote that could determine whether the judge would be confirmed.
“Hey @LisaMurkowski - I can see 2022 from my house...” Palin tweeted.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
ebaFznmZ8XLWEBnp
|
us_senate
|
The Flip Side
| 11
|
https://www.theflipside.io/archives/senate-votes-on-green-new-deal
|
Senate Votes on Green New Deal
|
“ In 2014 , [ Colorado ] became the first state to impose its own regulation on methane emissions , which are 25 times worse for climate change than carbon dioxide , and we did it by working with both environmentalists and industry . We implemented new standards for low-emission vehicles and expanded Colorado ’ s renewable energy standard , doubling the goal for rural electric producers . We also built public support for unprecedented expansions of light rail and the retrofitting of buildings to save energy . At the same time , we created more than 10,000 clean-energy jobs — just as we can create millions of clean-energy jobs across the country if we take the right steps. ” John Hickenlooper , Washington Post
Senator Doug Jones ( D-AL ) writes , “ This week , the Senate voted on one idea : the Green New Deal . Unfortunately , it was too broad and went too far . It tried to address such a diverse set of problems facing our country —climate change , lack of access to health care , and stagnant wages , for example —that it was not practical and collapsed under its own weight . I voted against it for this reason… “ Our leaders and the media spend too much time bickering about unrealistic ideas and not enough time talking about real steps we can take to protect our environment and grow our economy . While the Green New Deal is not a feasible way to move forward , I hope we can come together at every level of government and industry and find a path forward to secure our future. ” Sen. Doug Jones , al.com
Some note that “ Tuesday ’ s Senate vote rejecting the Green New Deal masks a striking reality : In a matter of months , liberal activists have upended the conversation about climate change among both parties in Washington … even as Republicans seek to exploit that divide , many GOP lawmakers are offering climate solutions of their own . And few besides President Donald Trump still dispute that the changing climate is a problem. ” Zack Colman and Anthony Adragna , Politico
“ McConnell tried to rush the # GreenNewDeal straight to the floor without a hearing . The real question we should be asking : Why does the Senate GOP refuse to hold any major hearings on climate change ? ” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) , Twitter
“ During floor debate ahead of a vote on the Green New Deal , Sen. Mike Lee ( R-Utah ) told his colleagues that if they really want to address environmental concerns they ’ ll encourage people to couple off and have more babies… This recommendation , to add more people to the planet , doesn ’ t track with science or reason . A 2017 research article determined that one way an individual could contribute to eliminating greenhouse gases is to have one fewer child . '' Colby Itkowitz , Washington Post
Fortunately , “ the ploy fell flat . Most Democrats agreed ahead of time to go with a noncommittal vote of ‘ present , ’ thus denying Mr. McConnell his desired drama and any meaningful vote count… The Green New Deal is by no means a fully baked proposal for combating climate change . But for all its flaws , it is a more promising first step than the Republican leaders ’ chosen strategy of inaction and sneering denial. ” Michelle Cottle , The New York Times
“ McConnell wanted to put moderate Senate Democrats on the spot by making them publicly vote yes or no on the resolution . It ’ s a way to sow chaos in the party and create fodder for political ads ahead of 2020 Senate elections. ” Li Zhou and Ella Nilsen , Vox
The left acknowledges that the specifics of the Green New Deal have yet to be determined , but accuses Republicans of focusing on political stunts rather than offering good-faith solutions to climate change .
The right accuses Democrats of hypocrisy for voting against a resolution they claim to support and argues for alternative solutions to climate change .
The right accuses Democrats of hypocrisy for voting against a resolution they claim to support and argues for alternative solutions to climate change .
“ If the measure is simply a resolution laying out goals , why can ’ t all members of the Senate say whether or not they support the goals now , as Markey , Ocasio-Cortez , and the Senate Democrats running for president had done when the Green New Deal was first introduced ? ‘ We haven ’ t had any witnesses or expertise or science , ’ Markey replied… But if further study is required before senators should be expected to take a stand on whether the goal makes sense , then the decision by Markey and Ocasio-Cortez to establish those goals in February doesn ’ t make sense . ”
“ Only in Congress could a political party introduce legislation with great media fanfare , then vote against it and blame the other side for cynicism… The real stunt is the Green New Deal . Democrats want to be seen as doing something about climate change without being accountable for the cost of their ideas . The Green New Deal proposes explicitly to retrofit every house in America and eliminate fossil fuels within a decade . That would mean higher energy costs , much higher taxes , and lower living standards for every American . ”
“ Every Democratic senator running for president has publicly stated his or her support for the Green New Deal , and , in fact , all of them have even signed on to Markey ’ s legislation as a cosponsor . Yet not one of them voted in favor of the measure this afternoon… the men and women who wish to be our next president should have the political courage either to vote for the proposals they say they support or to publicly oppose the policies for which they refuse to vote . ”
“ They 're willing enough to say the Green New Deal needs to happen , not willing enough to vote to advance it , but also not willing enough to say ‘ no ’ to it . True profiles in courage… One obvious takeaway from the vote is that the overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats are interested in combating climate change so long as it doesn ’ t actually involve anything more than talking . ”
Many argue that “ if Democrats cared about global warming as anything more than a political issue , they would not be wasting time with useless and impractical proposals like this one . Instead , they would start by creating policies more conducive to fracking for natural gas in the short run . This technology has done more in 10 years to reduce American carbon emissions than all the efforts of all environmental activists in history combined… Beyond that , Democrats who fear a warming planet should endorse and legislate toward the long-term expansion of nuclear energy , which safely and effectively freed France from its carbon footprint long ago . ”
“ With nuclear power available , the Green New Deal 's strategy for fighting climate change with windmills makes as much sense as going to war in sailboats… [ Instead ] I propose this response to climate change : the United States should launch a New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy , a five-year project to meet Ten Grand Challenges that will use American research and technology to put our country and the world firmly on a path toward cleaner , cheaper energy… American innovation is the answer . According to the Global Carbon Project , over the last 13 years , the United States has reduced production of greenhouse gases more than any major country – largely thanks to conservation and switching from coal to natural gas for electricity. ” Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) , Fox News
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 . ”
|
“In 2014, [Colorado] became the first state to impose its own regulation on methane emissions, which are 25 times worse for climate change than carbon dioxide, and we did it by working with both environmentalists and industry. We implemented new standards for low-emission vehicles and expanded Colorado’s renewable energy standard, doubling the goal for rural electric producers. We also built public support for unprecedented expansions of light rail and the retrofitting of buildings to save energy. At the same time, we created more than 10,000 clean-energy jobs — just as we can create millions of clean-energy jobs across the country if we take the right steps.” John Hickenlooper, Washington Post
Senator Doug Jones (D-AL) writes, “This week, the Senate voted on one idea: the Green New Deal. Unfortunately, it was too broad and went too far. It tried to address such a diverse set of problems facing our country —climate change, lack of access to health care, and stagnant wages, for example —that it was not practical and collapsed under its own weight . I voted against it for this reason… “Our leaders and the media spend too much time bickering about unrealistic ideas and not enough time talking about real steps we can take to protect our environment and grow our economy. While the Green New Deal is not a feasible way to move forward, I hope we can come together at every level of government and industry and find a path forward to secure our future.” Sen. Doug Jones, al.com
Some note that “Tuesday’s Senate vote rejecting the Green New Deal masks a striking reality: In a matter of months, liberal activists have upended the conversation about climate change among both parties in Washington … even as Republicans seek to exploit that divide, many GOP lawmakers are offering climate solutions of their own. And few besides President Donald Trump still dispute that the changing climate is a problem.” Zack Colman and Anthony Adragna, Politico
“McConnell tried to rush the #GreenNewDeal straight to the floor without a hearing. The real question we should be asking: Why does the Senate GOP refuse to hold any major hearings on climate change? ” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Twitter
“During floor debate ahead of a vote on the Green New Deal, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) told his colleagues that if they really want to address environmental concerns they’ll encourage people to couple off and have more babies… This recommendation, to add more people to the planet, doesn’t track with science or reason . A 2017 research article determined that one way an individual could contribute to eliminating greenhouse gases is to have one fewer child." Colby Itkowitz, Washington Post
Fortunately, “ the ploy fell flat . Most Democrats agreed ahead of time to go with a noncommittal vote of ‘present,’ thus denying Mr. McConnell his desired drama and any meaningful vote count… The Green New Deal is by no means a fully baked proposal for combating climate change. But for all its flaws, it is a more promising first step than the Republican leaders’ chosen strategy of inaction and sneering denial.” Michelle Cottle, The New York Times
“McConnell wanted to put moderate Senate Democrats on the spot by making them publicly vote yes or no on the resolution. It’s a way to sow chaos in the party and create fodder for political ads ahead of 2020 Senate elections.” Li Zhou and Ella Nilsen, Vox
The left acknowledges that the specifics of the Green New Deal have yet to be determined, but accuses Republicans of focusing on political stunts rather than offering good-faith solutions to climate change.
From the Right
The right accuses Democrats of hypocrisy for voting against a resolution they claim to support and argues for alternative solutions to climate change.
From the Right
The right accuses Democrats of hypocrisy for voting against a resolution they claim to support and argues for alternative solutions to climate change.
“If the measure is simply a resolution laying out goals, why can’t all members of the Senate say whether or not they support the goals now, as Markey, Ocasio-Cortez, and the Senate Democrats running for president had done when the Green New Deal was first introduced? ‘We haven’t had any witnesses or expertise or science,’ Markey replied… But if further study is required before senators should be expected to take a stand on whether the goal makes sense, then the decision by Markey and Ocasio-Cortez to establish those goals in February doesn’t make sense.”
John McCormack, National Review
“Only in Congress could a political party introduce legislation with great media fanfare, then vote against it and blame the other side for cynicism… The real stunt is the Green New Deal. Democrats want to be seen as doing something about climate change without being accountable for the cost of their ideas. The Green New Deal proposes explicitly to retrofit every house in America and eliminate fossil fuels within a decade. That would mean higher energy costs, much higher taxes, and lower living standards for every American.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“Every Democratic senator running for president has publicly stated his or her support for the Green New Deal, and, in fact, all of them have even signed on to Markey’s legislation as a cosponsor. Yet not one of them voted in favor of the measure this afternoon… the men and women who wish to be our next president should have the political courage either to vote for the proposals they say they support or to publicly oppose the policies for which they refuse to vote.”
Alexandra DeSanctis, National Review
“They're willing enough to say the Green New Deal needs to happen, not willing enough to vote to advance it, but also not willing enough to say ‘no’ to it. True profiles in courage… One obvious takeaway from the vote is that the overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats are interested in combating climate change so long as it doesn’t actually involve anything more than talking.”
Becket Adams, Washington Examiner
Many argue that “if Democrats cared about global warming as anything more than a political issue, they would not be wasting time with useless and impractical proposals like this one. Instead, they would start by creating policies more conducive to fracking for natural gas in the short run. This technology has done more in 10 years to reduce American carbon emissions than all the efforts of all environmental activists in history combined… Beyond that, Democrats who fear a warming planet should endorse and legislate toward the long-term expansion of nuclear energy, which safely and effectively freed France from its carbon footprint long ago.”
Editorial Board, Washington Examiner
“With nuclear power available, the Green New Deal's strategy for fighting climate change with windmills makes as much sense as going to war in sailboats… [Instead] I propose this response to climate change: the United States should launch a New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy, a five-year project to meet Ten Grand Challenges that will use American research and technology to put our country and the world firmly on a path toward cleaner, cheaper energy… American innovation is the answer. According to the Global Carbon Project, over the last 13 years, the United States has reduced production of greenhouse gases more than any major country – largely thanks to conservation and switching from coal to natural gas for electricity.” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Fox News
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
|
IMIyhePFd1T6am2w
|
||
terrorism
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/19/london-crash-van-slams-into-crowd-leaving-mosque-one-arrested.html
|
London van attack: Suspect identified, arrested in terror investigation
|
2017-06-19
|
The man suspected of mowing down a crowd exiting Ramadan prayers at a London mosque early Monday has been identified as 47-year-old Darren Osborne of Cardiff , Wales , sources told Sky News .
At least one person was killed and 10 others were injured in the assault , which authorities were treating as a terrorist attack .
Osborne , reportedly a father of four , was arrested on suspicion of terror offenses in the collision with pedestrians outside the Muslim Welfare House , Metropolitan Police said . People at the scene shouted at him : `` Why did you do that ? Why ? ''
`` This man was not known to authorities in the space of extremism or far-right extremism , '' Ben Wallace , Britain 's minister for security , told Sky News .
The incident occurred outside the Finsbury Park Mosque shortly after midnight after Ramadan prayers . Police said all of the injured were members of the Muslim community . Muslim leaders decried the collision as a hate crime and asked the public to stay calm .
Police said eight of the injured were taken to three hospitals and two suffered minor injuries and were treated at the scene .
Witnesses reported seeing at least one person receiving chest compressions . Police said that person was the lone death in the incident , but it was unclear if it was the van that caused the death .
Prime Minister Theresa May described the attack as a `` sickening '' attempt to destroy liberties that unite Britain , such as freedom of worship . She added that the man acted alone . May said earlier she would chair an emergency security Cabinet session later Monday and that her thoughts were with the injured , their loved ones and emergency officials who responded to the incident .
The Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) has responded to the attack and said the Secretary of Homeland Security , John Francis Kelly , has been briefed .
“ DHS stands with our European allies in fighting back against all forms of terrorism , and we will continue to work together to keep our communities safe against violent extremists who target any of our people , ” a statement by the DHS said .
“ Our thoughts and prayers are with all affected by these violent and reprehensible attacks . ”
A leader of the Muslim Council of Britain called for extra security at mosques in light of the apparent attack . The group 's general secretary , Harun Khan , described the incident as a hate crime against Muslims .
`` During the night , ordinary British citizens were set upon while they were going about their lives , completing their night worship , '' he said . `` It appears from eyewitness accounts that the perpetrator was motivated by Islamophobia . ''
London Mayor Sadiq Khan , the first Muslim to serve in that position , said extra police would be deployed . He called the incident a `` horrific terrorist attack . ''
Khan also called on Britain 's government to supply more funding and resources to the city 's police force .
`` My message to the Government is - we need to get the right of level of funding for a capital city , '' Khan said in a news conference .
Video filmed in the immediate aftermath showed a Caucasian man being detained by police .
Imam Mohammed Mahmoud , who reportedly stopped the suspect from being harmed by a group of angry people , said he and others did their best to calm tensions .
`` We extinguished flames of anger or mob rule that would have taken charge , '' Mahmoud said .
The chairman of the Finsbury Park Mosque said the van crash that hit worshippers was a `` cowardly attack '' and urged Muslims going to mosques to be vigilant .
Mohammed Kozbar said the Muslim community is `` in shock . '' He complained that the `` mainstream media '' was unwilling to call the attack a terrorist incident for many hours .
London police closed the area to normal traffic . A helicopter circled above the area as a large cordon was established to keep motorists and pedestrians away .
Witnesses told British media that the van seemed to have veered off the road and hit people intentionally . They also said two men jumped out of the van and fled the scene , but police said the suspect was only one man and the investigation is still ongoing .
Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation , a Muslim organization , said that based on eyewitness reports , it seems to be a `` deliberate attack against innocent Muslims . ''
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said in a tweet he was shocked by the incident .
Britain 's terrorist alert has been set at `` severe , '' meaning an attack is highly likely .
|
The man suspected of mowing down a crowd exiting Ramadan prayers at a London mosque early Monday has been identified as 47-year-old Darren Osborne of Cardiff, Wales, sources told Sky News.
At least one person was killed and 10 others were injured in the assault, which authorities were treating as a terrorist attack.
Osborne, reportedly a father of four, was arrested on suspicion of terror offenses in the collision with pedestrians outside the Muslim Welfare House, Metropolitan Police said. People at the scene shouted at him: "Why did you do that? Why?"
"This man was not known to authorities in the space of extremism or far-right extremism," Ben Wallace, Britain's minister for security, told Sky News.
The incident occurred outside the Finsbury Park Mosque shortly after midnight after Ramadan prayers. Police said all of the injured were members of the Muslim community. Muslim leaders decried the collision as a hate crime and asked the public to stay calm.
Police said eight of the injured were taken to three hospitals and two suffered minor injuries and were treated at the scene.
Witnesses reported seeing at least one person receiving chest compressions. Police said that person was the lone death in the incident, but it was unclear if it was the van that caused the death.
Prime Minister Theresa May described the attack as a "sickening" attempt to destroy liberties that unite Britain, such as freedom of worship. She added that the man acted alone. May said earlier she would chair an emergency security Cabinet session later Monday and that her thoughts were with the injured, their loved ones and emergency officials who responded to the incident.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has responded to the attack and said the Secretary of Homeland Security, John Francis Kelly, has been briefed.
“DHS stands with our European allies in fighting back against all forms of terrorism, and we will continue to work together to keep our communities safe against violent extremists who target any of our people,” a statement by the DHS said.
“Our thoughts and prayers are with all affected by these violent and reprehensible attacks.”
A leader of the Muslim Council of Britain called for extra security at mosques in light of the apparent attack. The group's general secretary, Harun Khan, described the incident as a hate crime against Muslims.
"During the night, ordinary British citizens were set upon while they were going about their lives, completing their night worship," he said. "It appears from eyewitness accounts that the perpetrator was motivated by Islamophobia."
London Mayor Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim to serve in that position, said extra police would be deployed. He called the incident a "horrific terrorist attack."
Khan also called on Britain's government to supply more funding and resources to the city's police force.
"My message to the Government is - we need to get the right of level of funding for a capital city," Khan said in a news conference.
Video filmed in the immediate aftermath showed a Caucasian man being detained by police.
Imam Mohammed Mahmoud, who reportedly stopped the suspect from being harmed by a group of angry people, said he and others did their best to calm tensions.
"We extinguished flames of anger or mob rule that would have taken charge," Mahmoud said.
The chairman of the Finsbury Park Mosque said the van crash that hit worshippers was a "cowardly attack" and urged Muslims going to mosques to be vigilant.
Mohammed Kozbar said the Muslim community is "in shock." He complained that the "mainstream media" was unwilling to call the attack a terrorist incident for many hours.
London police closed the area to normal traffic. A helicopter circled above the area as a large cordon was established to keep motorists and pedestrians away.
Witnesses told British media that the van seemed to have veered off the road and hit people intentionally. They also said two men jumped out of the van and fled the scene, but police said the suspect was only one man and the investigation is still ongoing.
Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim organization, said that based on eyewitness reports, it seems to be a "deliberate attack against innocent Muslims."
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said in a tweet he was shocked by the incident.
Britain's terrorist alert has been set at "severe," meaning an attack is highly likely.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
gW7Q90ch5YwfnTEb
|
|
world
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate-agreement-shares-nations-wealth/
|
Developing nations in Paris climate accord threaten to keep polluting unless they’re paid
|
2017-06-05
|
Ben Wolfgang
|
Yemen has promised a whopping 1 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global Paris climate agreement .
North Korea , meanwhile , has said its pollution will double by 2030 compared with 2000 levels — but only if the rest of the world writes a sizable check . Otherwise , its emissions will rise even further .
Peru says it can cut emissions by 30 percent by 2030 compared with its “ business as usual ” projections , though that would be a net pollution increase of 22 percent and is contingent on billions of dollars in funding .
India , Iran , South Sudan , Niger , the Central African Republic , Cuba , Egypt , Paraguay and a host of other countries have similar demands : Pay up , or else they will have to keep polluting .
When President Trump pulled out of the Paris climate accord last week , his critics — including former President Barack Obama — said he was turning his back on the future and joining only Syria and Nicaragua in refusing to take part .
But for many that remain in the accord , the demands for cash are fueling the argument that the Paris agreement , at its core , is as much about redistributing international wealth as it is about saving the planet from climate change .
Supporters of the deal routinely point out that 193 countries have signed on . Although that is technically true , the vast majority of commitments offered in Paris would result in emissions increases or would require billions of dollars in funding — or , in many cases , both .
“ Claiming that 193 countries signed on is a meaningless statement , which is likely why it ’ s made . The meaningful way to view it is that 193 countries agreed that the U.S. should harm itself and to gladly pay on Tuesday for the U.S. to harm itself today , ” said Chris Horner , a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a leading critic of the Paris pact . “ There ’ s a stark difference between agreeing to sign on to Paris and agreeing to do something , to undertake pain . In essence , they rented their signature for the promise of Paris-related wealth transfers . But for them to promise to do anything beyond take our money and impose the agenda , too , would really cost us . ”
Unlike much of the developing world , major countries such as the U.S. , Russia and China did not make their commitments beholden to international financial support . The U.S. vowed to cut its emissions at least 26 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels ; Russia made a similar commitment .
China said it will hit peak emissions by 2030 and then begin reductions . The European Union is aiming for a 40 percent cut by 2030 versus 1990 levels .
Other developed countries , such as Canada and Japan , also did not make their promises contingent on financial help .
But for the vast majority of the countries , their promises aren ’ t feasible without a major influx of money .
At least $ 420 billion has been formally requested under countries ’ submissions to the Paris agreement , according to Carbon Brief , a U.K.-based group that tracks international climate change and maintains a comprehensive database of all information related to the Paris deal .
That figure , however , is far lower than what will ultimately be required . Many countries do not specify exactly how much money it will take to meet their emissions reduction targets .
Yemen , for example , said it could increase its 1 percent pledge to 14 percent with financial help , but the country — the poorest in the Muslim world — didn ’ t indicate how much cash it needs .
Some analysts say the final figure for worldwide compliance with the Paris pledges would be in the trillions of dollars . U.N. officials estimated that it would cost at least $ 100 billion per year , and that figure could rise to more than $ 400 billion per year by 2020 to ensure compliance .
When the Obama administration finalized the agreement in December 2015 , it committed $ 3 billion to the United Nations ’ Green Climate Fund , which is meant to help countries meet their targets . Only $ 1 billion of that has been paid out , and the Trump administration won ’ t sign off on any further payments .
In fact , the president specifically cited that fund and its reliance on U.S. cash as key reasons for pulling out of the deal .
“ So we ’ re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars , and we ’ re already way ahead of anybody else . Many of the other countries haven ’ t spent anything , and many of them will never pay one dime , ” Mr. Trump said in his Rose Garden address last week . “ America is $ 20 trillion in debt . And yet , under the Paris Accord , billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us . So think of that . ”
Some analysts say the Green Climate Fund would work against efforts to make the U.S. economy greener by funneling money from technological research to developing nations .
“ These very real expenses will consume money that could be used by the private sector to fund innovative new technologies that are economically sound and can power our society with little pollution , ” Patrick Michaels , director of the Center for the Study of Science at the libertarian Cato Institute , said last week after Mr. Trump announced America ’ s withdrawal .
It ’ s unclear whether the agreement can survive without U.S. financial support . The president has said he is willing to re-enter the deal if he can secure terms more favorable for the U.S. , though he seemed unwilling to put the country on the hook for significant payouts to developing countries .
Still , supporters of the Paris accord as it is currently structured argue that it offers economic opportunities to the U.S. by promoting jobs in clean energy .
“ So , because of this decision , American leadership in those sectors is now going to be put at risk , ” former Secretary of State John F. Kerry , a key architect of the deal , told NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press ” on Sunday . “ We could lose some of our ability to be able to grow those jobs and in fact lose out on the largest market of the future . The biggest market in the world in the future is going to be trillions of dollars spent in the sector of energy . ”
|
Yemen has promised a whopping 1 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global Paris climate agreement.
North Korea, meanwhile, has said its pollution will double by 2030 compared with 2000 levels — but only if the rest of the world writes a sizable check. Otherwise, its emissions will rise even further.
Peru says it can cut emissions by 30 percent by 2030 compared with its “business as usual” projections, though that would be a net pollution increase of 22 percent and is contingent on billions of dollars in funding.
India, Iran, South Sudan, Niger, the Central African Republic, Cuba, Egypt, Paraguay and a host of other countries have similar demands: Pay up, or else they will have to keep polluting.
When President Trump pulled out of the Paris climate accord last week, his critics — including former President Barack Obama — said he was turning his back on the future and joining only Syria and Nicaragua in refusing to take part.
But for many that remain in the accord, the demands for cash are fueling the argument that the Paris agreement, at its core, is as much about redistributing international wealth as it is about saving the planet from climate change.
Supporters of the deal routinely point out that 193 countries have signed on. Although that is technically true, the vast majority of commitments offered in Paris would result in emissions increases or would require billions of dollars in funding — or, in many cases, both.
“Claiming that 193 countries signed on is a meaningless statement, which is likely why it’s made. The meaningful way to view it is that 193 countries agreed that the U.S. should harm itself and to gladly pay on Tuesday for the U.S. to harm itself today,” said Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a leading critic of the Paris pact. “There’s a stark difference between agreeing to sign on to Paris and agreeing to do something, to undertake pain. In essence, they rented their signature for the promise of Paris-related wealth transfers. But for them to promise to do anything beyond take our money and impose the agenda, too, would really cost us.”
Unlike much of the developing world, major countries such as the U.S., Russia and China did not make their commitments beholden to international financial support. The U.S. vowed to cut its emissions at least 26 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels; Russia made a similar commitment.
China said it will hit peak emissions by 2030 and then begin reductions. The European Union is aiming for a 40 percent cut by 2030 versus 1990 levels.
Other developed countries, such as Canada and Japan, also did not make their promises contingent on financial help.
But for the vast majority of the countries, their promises aren’t feasible without a major influx of money.
At least $420 billion has been formally requested under countries’ submissions to the Paris agreement, according to Carbon Brief, a U.K.-based group that tracks international climate change and maintains a comprehensive database of all information related to the Paris deal.
That figure, however, is far lower than what will ultimately be required. Many countries do not specify exactly how much money it will take to meet their emissions reduction targets.
Yemen, for example, said it could increase its 1 percent pledge to 14 percent with financial help, but the country — the poorest in the Muslim world — didn’t indicate how much cash it needs.
Some analysts say the final figure for worldwide compliance with the Paris pledges would be in the trillions of dollars. U.N. officials estimated that it would cost at least $100 billion per year, and that figure could rise to more than $400 billion per year by 2020 to ensure compliance.
When the Obama administration finalized the agreement in December 2015, it committed $3 billion to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund, which is meant to help countries meet their targets. Only $1 billion of that has been paid out, and the Trump administration won’t sign off on any further payments.
In fact, the president specifically cited that fund and its reliance on U.S. cash as key reasons for pulling out of the deal.
“So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else. Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime,” Mr. Trump said in his Rose Garden address last week. “America is $20 trillion in debt. And yet, under the Paris Accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us. So think of that.”
Some analysts say the Green Climate Fund would work against efforts to make the U.S. economy greener by funneling money from technological research to developing nations.
“These very real expenses will consume money that could be used by the private sector to fund innovative new technologies that are economically sound and can power our society with little pollution,” Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the libertarian Cato Institute, said last week after Mr. Trump announced America’s withdrawal.
It’s unclear whether the agreement can survive without U.S. financial support. The president has said he is willing to re-enter the deal if he can secure terms more favorable for the U.S., though he seemed unwilling to put the country on the hook for significant payouts to developing countries.
Still, supporters of the Paris accord as it is currently structured argue that it offers economic opportunities to the U.S. by promoting jobs in clean energy.
“So, because of this decision, American leadership in those sectors is now going to be put at risk,” former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, a key architect of the deal, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “We could lose some of our ability to be able to grow those jobs and in fact lose out on the largest market of the future. The biggest market in the world in the future is going to be trillions of dollars spent in the sector of energy.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
fMLiS7uMS8sI62KC
|
immigration
|
CBN
| 22
|
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/august/dems-and-immigration-advocates-push-back-against-new-trump-plan-for-migrant-families
|
Dems and Immigration Advocates Push Back Against New Trump Plan for Migrant Families
|
2019-08-22
|
WASHINGTON – President Trump is standing by a new rule that would allow the government to detain migrant families indefinitely while their asylum claims are being processed , and critics are pushing back .
The new Department of Homeland Security policy would effectively end the practice of `` catch and release '' at the border , but immigration advocates and Democrats say it would cause more problems than it solves .
`` Right now we have a million , more than a million plus , backlogged in terms of the immigration court , '' Geoffrey Hoffman with the University of Houston Immigration Law Clinic said . `` Most likely it 's going to take several years and then what the government is trying to do is say , all of those people who are in detention , all those families should be detained indefinitely while that process is pending . ''
The policy , announced Wednesday , would end a previous rule that children detained with their families could only be held for 20 days . Now , families would be kept together and held until their day in court .
Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan defended the move and also unveiled plans for new housing in a news conference . He said the old agreement basically served as an incentive for illegal entry .
`` Human smugglers advertise and intending migrants know that even if they cross the border illegally , arriving at the border with a child has meant that they will be released into the United States to wait for court proceedings that could take five years or more , '' said McAleenan .
Democrats are also blasting the change , accusing Trump of wanting to punish children .
`` This president seems to want maximum cruelty for children who are brown , '' presidential candidate Julian Castro said .
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also criticized the new rule in a statement . `` The administration is seeking to codify child abuse , plain and simple , '' she claimed .
The president says congressional inaction is creating the crisis at the border .
`` If the Democrats would meet and we could fix the loopholes and asylum , which is what you are talking about to an extent – but let me just tell you very much I have the children on my mind . It bothers me very greatly , '' Trump told reporters .
He 's also coming under fire for saying he 's considering ending birthright citizenship which is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution .
`` We 're looking at that very seriously , birthright citizenship where you have a baby , you know , you walk over the border have a baby , congratulations the baby is now a US citizen . We 're looking at it very , very seriously , '' he said .
The new rule would take effect 60 days from Friday but is already facing legal challenges , so it could take much longer .
|
WASHINGTON – President Trump is standing by a new rule that would allow the government to detain migrant families indefinitely while their asylum claims are being processed, and critics are pushing back.
The new Department of Homeland Security policy would effectively end the practice of "catch and release" at the border, but immigration advocates and Democrats say it would cause more problems than it solves.
"Right now we have a million, more than a million plus, backlogged in terms of the immigration court," Geoffrey Hoffman with the University of Houston Immigration Law Clinic said. "Most likely it's going to take several years and then what the government is trying to do is say, all of those people who are in detention, all those families should be detained indefinitely while that process is pending."
The policy, announced Wednesday, would end a previous rule that children detained with their families could only be held for 20 days. Now, families would be kept together and held until their day in court.
Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan defended the move and also unveiled plans for new housing in a news conference. He said the old agreement basically served as an incentive for illegal entry.
"Human smugglers advertise and intending migrants know that even if they cross the border illegally, arriving at the border with a child has meant that they will be released into the United States to wait for court proceedings that could take five years or more," said McAleenan.
Democrats are also blasting the change, accusing Trump of wanting to punish children.
"This president seems to want maximum cruelty for children who are brown," presidential candidate Julian Castro said.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also criticized the new rule in a statement. "The administration is seeking to codify child abuse, plain and simple," she claimed.
The president says congressional inaction is creating the crisis at the border.
"If the Democrats would meet and we could fix the loopholes and asylum, which is what you are talking about to an extent – but let me just tell you very much I have the children on my mind. It bothers me very greatly," Trump told reporters.
He's also coming under fire for saying he's considering ending birthright citizenship which is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
"We're looking at that very seriously, birthright citizenship where you have a baby, you know, you walk over the border have a baby, congratulations the baby is now a US citizen. We're looking at it very, very seriously," he said.
The new rule would take effect 60 days from Friday but is already facing legal challenges, so it could take much longer.
|
www1.cbn.com
| 1right
|
y0bEO71tqT3U5qaJ
|
|
elections
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/28/biden-energy-crisis-1345359
|
Joe Biden is the front-runner by every measure — except big crowds
|
2019-05-28
|
Marc Caputo, Natasha Korecki
|
Attendance at former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s launch rally paled next to some of his rivals . | Matt Rourke/AP Photo 2020 Elections Joe Biden is the front-runner by every measure — except big crowds The former veep is leading the Democratic field in all the important categories except one .
He ’ s dominating in the polls , his fundraising is going gangbusters and he ’ s showing broad support from key political players in the early presidential states .
So where are the big energetic crowds , the lines around the block to get into Joe Biden ’ s events ?
The question is no small matter in a party still recovering from a bitter 2016 defeat — a loss marked by a lack of enthusiasm for an establishment nominee in several critical states .
Attendance at the former vice president ’ s launch rally paled next to some of his rivals . In his first Iowa visit , he didn ’ t match the crowds that greeted Elizabeth Warren or even the less well-known Pete Buttigieg in their initial visits . So far , he ’ s kept his events to smaller venues where there ’ s little danger of empty seats .
In the eyes of Biden ’ s progressive critics — as well as President Donald Trump , who has publicly mocked him for it — the seeming lack of excitement or teeming masses at his events is a leading indicator of a lack of passion for his candidacy .
“ I started to think the polls were wrong about Biden because it ’ s not what we ’ re seeing on the ground , ” said Aimee Allison , founder and president of She the People , a national network devoted to promoting women of color .
COUNTDOWN TO 2020 The race for 2020 starts now . Stay in the know . Follow our presidential election coverage . Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time .
“ Inspiration is the X-factor and we ’ re waiting for the inspiration from Biden , ” she said . “ When the inspiration isn ’ t there , the turnout from the core of the Democratic base — women of color — isn ’ t there . And then we lose . ”
To Biden ’ s campaign , attendance figures are a meaningless metric . Focusing on crowd size is Trump ’ s game , it says , an emphasis on style over substance that attempts to turn audience engagement into an argument about the 76-year-old Biden ’ s energy level .
Crowd size , after all , is an imperfect metric to measure a campaign ’ s vitality . While it can be a revealing indicator , it still lacks the scientific underpinning of polling or the fixed-dollar figures associated with fundraising . Nor does it account for the judgment of elected and influential Democrats across the country .
Just as critics doubted Biden ’ s popularity before he got in the race , his campaign is confident he ’ ll have the crowds when he needs them .
`` We 're seeing enormous enthusiasm for Joe Biden 's candidacy across the country , beginning the very first day of the campaign when he got over 100,000 contributions — 65,000 of which were brand new to our lists — from all 50 states , ” said Biden campaign spokesman T.J. Ducklo .
Even so , since announcing his candidacy more than a month ago , Biden has yet to draw anything near the 20,000 people who showed in Oakland to cheer on Kamala Harris when she announced , or the 13,000 who turned out in Brooklyn for Bernie Sanders ’ launch .
Just as critics doubted Joe Biden ’ s popularity before he got in the race , his campaign is confident he ’ ll have the crowds when he needs them . | Matt Rourke/AP Photo
Last Saturday , when Biden held a rally for his headquarters ’ opening in Philadelphia , his campaign estimated the crowd size was 6,000 — a count that some local observers thought might be generous . One local elected Democrat who supports Biden privately told ███ the rally was smaller and less energetic than expected .
The event fell far short of the size his surrogates predicted in one of the nation ’ s largest Democratic cities . Just before Biden formally announced his candidacy last month , former Pennsylvania Gov . Ed Rendell , who helped organize a fundraiser for Biden , had loftier expectations .
“ He ’ s enormously popular here , ” Rendell , a former Philadelphia mayor , said in a late April interview . “ We could get tens and tens of thousands of people … For one rally , I think we could do that . ”
The crowd size was similar to what President Barack Obama drew at a 2016 rally for Hillary Clinton at the same venue . As a candidate , however , in April 2008 , some 35,000 people flooded Independence Mall to see Obama — before he was the nominee .
Trump — for whom crowd size borders on obsession — seized on Biden ’ s Philadelphia launch , mocking the former vice president two days later at a rival Pennsylvania speech in which he exaggerated the smallness of the crowd .
“ We have thousands of people … look at the thousands and thousands of people we have , ” Trump said at a Montoursville rally , for which his campaign declined to release an estimated crowd count . “ They said [ Biden ] had 600 people ... I ’ d say 150 . ”
It ’ s not the first time Trump has needled Biden over crowd sizes . In 2018 , when the president and Biden held dueling Nevada rallies in the homestretch of the midterm campaign — and Trump ’ s Elko rally had more attendees than Biden ’ s Las Vegas rally — Trump used the occasion to point to Biden ’ s prior presidential race defeat and joked that Biden “ was thrilled that ’ s one of the biggest crowds he ’ s ever had . ”
It ’ s not just the size of Biden ’ s events that are modest , he ’ s also holding far fewer of them than his primary competitors . Since his launch , he ’ s visited Iowa only once . And while Democrats crisscrossed early presidential primary states during the long Memorial Day weekend , Biden took it off . ( On Tuesday , he travels to Houston where he and his wife , Jill , will join an American Federation of Teachers town hall . )
There are signs that the theme could become more prominent as the campaign progresses . One of the president ’ s top surrogates , Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz , said Biden won ’ t have the energy to campaign full time once he gets off “ the French workweek campaign schedule ” that the Democrat is currently on .
“ He wants to make America bored again . It ’ s like he wants to put his audience to sleep , ” Gaetz said .
“ Trump ’ s rallies are big and raucous and enthusiastic . And the reason that matters is that in today ’ s politics , people want to be part of something , ” Gaetz said . “ Joe Biden ’ s rallies looks like an event where you would give a gold watch to the Democrat for a lifetime of service . ”
James Carville , one of the masterminds behind Bill Clinton ’ s campaigns for president , said those criticisms miss an essential point about the kind of no-frills-no-thrills campaign he is running .
“ He ’ s never been a candidate who has run on excitement . He has run on ‘ you can trust me . I ’ m a good guy . My heart is in the right place . I ’ m human . You know me . I ’ m well-liked , ’ ” Carville said . “ Their theory of the case is people are tired of the circus . And it takes an experienced hand to settle everything down to get us back to some era of sanity . ”
To that end , some Democrats say Biden ’ s sometimes listless crowds aren ’ t cause for concern , but merely reflective of the part of the electorate backing him : older , middle-of-the-road Democrats who are more likely to turn out to the polls than to boisterous megarallies .
Polk County Democratic Chair Sean Bagniewski said there weren ’ t lines around the block for Biden during his Iowa visit , but that at a local Democratic Party dinner , the former vice president ’ s campaign dominated local chatter .
“ The polls are picking up the people who might not be going to the rallies , might not be going to the meetings . But the polls can still be right , ” Bagniewski said . “ The rank and file can be reliable Democrats . They ’ re the people who have been around for awhile . ”
Brian Fallon , former spokesman for Hillary Clinton , said the Biden campaign isn ’ t going for big crowds and passion and is instead underpinned by “ a very pragmatic argument . It ’ s not an argument designed to electrify . It revolves around electability ... It ’ s not the type of message that inspires a movement . It ’ s very practical . ”
There ’ s also the matter of Biden ’ s long tenure in politics . Crowds that flooded to Buttigieg or Beto O ’ Rourke in this cycle did so in part because they ’ ve never seen the candidates before .
Tad Devine , who was part of Sanders ’ insurgent 2016 campaign against Clinton , added that Biden doesn ’ t need the big crowds the way Sanders did in the previous race because the former vice president doesn ’ t need to show he ’ s a legitimate candidate — he ’ s the front-runner .
“ Biden ’ s not a crowd candidate . He ’ s not Obama . He ’ s not Bernie , ” Devine said . “ Drawing big crowds is more important for Beto [ O ’ Rourke ] or Mayor Pete to get into the mix . ”
|
Attendance at former Vice President Joe Biden’s launch rally paled next to some of his rivals. | Matt Rourke/AP Photo 2020 Elections Joe Biden is the front-runner by every measure — except big crowds The former veep is leading the Democratic field in all the important categories except one.
He’s dominating in the polls, his fundraising is going gangbusters and he’s showing broad support from key political players in the early presidential states.
So where are the big energetic crowds, the lines around the block to get into Joe Biden’s events?
Story Continued Below
The question is no small matter in a party still recovering from a bitter 2016 defeat — a loss marked by a lack of enthusiasm for an establishment nominee in several critical states.
Attendance at the former vice president’s launch rally paled next to some of his rivals. In his first Iowa visit, he didn’t match the crowds that greeted Elizabeth Warren or even the less well-known Pete Buttigieg in their initial visits. So far, he’s kept his events to smaller venues where there’s little danger of empty seats.
In the eyes of Biden’s progressive critics — as well as President Donald Trump, who has publicly mocked him for it — the seeming lack of excitement or teeming masses at his events is a leading indicator of a lack of passion for his candidacy.
“I started to think the polls were wrong about Biden because it’s not what we’re seeing on the ground,” said Aimee Allison, founder and president of She the People, a national network devoted to promoting women of color.
COUNTDOWN TO 2020 The race for 2020 starts now. Stay in the know. Follow our presidential election coverage. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
“Inspiration is the X-factor and we’re waiting for the inspiration from Biden,” she said. “When the inspiration isn’t there, the turnout from the core of the Democratic base — women of color — isn’t there. And then we lose.”
To Biden’s campaign, attendance figures are a meaningless metric. Focusing on crowd size is Trump’s game, it says, an emphasis on style over substance that attempts to turn audience engagement into an argument about the 76-year-old Biden’s energy level.
Crowd size, after all, is an imperfect metric to measure a campaign’s vitality. While it can be a revealing indicator, it still lacks the scientific underpinning of polling or the fixed-dollar figures associated with fundraising. Nor does it account for the judgment of elected and influential Democrats across the country.
poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201904/2069/1155968404_6030284416001_6030282578001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404"
Just as critics doubted Biden’s popularity before he got in the race, his campaign is confident he’ll have the crowds when he needs them.
"We're seeing enormous enthusiasm for Joe Biden's candidacy across the country, beginning the very first day of the campaign when he got over 100,000 contributions — 65,000 of which were brand new to our lists — from all 50 states,” said Biden campaign spokesman T.J. Ducklo.
Even so, since announcing his candidacy more than a month ago, Biden has yet to draw anything near the 20,000 people who showed in Oakland to cheer on Kamala Harris when she announced, or the 13,000 who turned out in Brooklyn for Bernie Sanders’ launch.
Just as critics doubted Joe Biden’s popularity before he got in the race, his campaign is confident he’ll have the crowds when he needs them. | Matt Rourke/AP Photo
Last Saturday, when Biden held a rally for his headquarters’ opening in Philadelphia, his campaign estimated the crowd size was 6,000 — a count that some local observers thought might be generous. One local elected Democrat who supports Biden privately told POLITICO the rally was smaller and less energetic than expected.
The event fell far short of the size his surrogates predicted in one of the nation’s largest Democratic cities. Just before Biden formally announced his candidacy last month, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who helped organize a fundraiser for Biden, had loftier expectations.
“He’s enormously popular here,” Rendell, a former Philadelphia mayor, said in a late April interview. “We could get tens and tens of thousands of people … For one rally, I think we could do that.”
The crowd size was similar to what President Barack Obama drew at a 2016 rally for Hillary Clinton at the same venue. As a candidate, however, in April 2008, some 35,000 people flooded Independence Mall to see Obama — before he was the nominee.
Trump — for whom crowd size borders on obsession — seized on Biden’s Philadelphia launch, mocking the former vice president two days later at a rival Pennsylvania speech in which he exaggerated the smallness of the crowd.
“We have thousands of people … look at the thousands and thousands of people we have,” Trump said at a Montoursville rally, for which his campaign declined to release an estimated crowd count. “They said [Biden] had 600 people ... I’d say 150.”
It’s not the first time Trump has needled Biden over crowd sizes. In 2018, when the president and Biden held dueling Nevada rallies in the homestretch of the midterm campaign — and Trump’s Elko rally had more attendees than Biden’s Las Vegas rally — Trump used the occasion to point to Biden’s prior presidential race defeat and joked that Biden “was thrilled that’s one of the biggest crowds he’s ever had.”
It’s not just the size of Biden’s events that are modest, he’s also holding far fewer of them than his primary competitors. Since his launch, he’s visited Iowa only once. And while Democrats crisscrossed early presidential primary states during the long Memorial Day weekend, Biden took it off. (On Tuesday, he travels to Houston where he and his wife, Jill, will join an American Federation of Teachers town hall.)
poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201904/1171/1155968404_6031209899001_6031213417001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404"
There are signs that the theme could become more prominent as the campaign progresses. One of the president’s top surrogates, Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, said Biden won’t have the energy to campaign full time once he gets off “the French workweek campaign schedule” that the Democrat is currently on.
“He wants to make America bored again. It’s like he wants to put his audience to sleep,” Gaetz said.
“Trump’s rallies are big and raucous and enthusiastic. And the reason that matters is that in today’s politics, people want to be part of something,” Gaetz said. “Joe Biden’s rallies looks like an event where you would give a gold watch to the Democrat for a lifetime of service.”
James Carville, one of the masterminds behind Bill Clinton’s campaigns for president, said those criticisms miss an essential point about the kind of no-frills-no-thrills campaign he is running.
“He’s never been a candidate who has run on excitement. He has run on ‘you can trust me. I’m a good guy. My heart is in the right place. I’m human. You know me. I’m well-liked,’” Carville said. “Their theory of the case is people are tired of the circus. And it takes an experienced hand to settle everything down to get us back to some era of sanity.”
To that end, some Democrats say Biden’s sometimes listless crowds aren’t cause for concern, but merely reflective of the part of the electorate backing him: older, middle-of-the-road Democrats who are more likely to turn out to the polls than to boisterous megarallies.
Polk County Democratic Chair Sean Bagniewski said there weren’t lines around the block for Biden during his Iowa visit, but that at a local Democratic Party dinner, the former vice president’s campaign dominated local chatter.
“The polls are picking up the people who might not be going to the rallies, might not be going to the meetings. But the polls can still be right,” Bagniewski said. “The rank and file can be reliable Democrats. They’re the people who have been around for awhile.”
Brian Fallon, former spokesman for Hillary Clinton, said the Biden campaign isn’t going for big crowds and passion and is instead underpinned by “a very pragmatic argument. It’s not an argument designed to electrify. It revolves around electability ... It’s not the type of message that inspires a movement. It’s very practical.”
There’s also the matter of Biden’s long tenure in politics. Crowds that flooded to Buttigieg or Beto O’Rourke in this cycle did so in part because they’ve never seen the candidates before.
Tad Devine, who was part of Sanders’ insurgent 2016 campaign against Clinton, added that Biden doesn’t need the big crowds the way Sanders did in the previous race because the former vice president doesn’t need to show he’s a legitimate candidate — he’s the front-runner.
“Biden’s not a crowd candidate. He’s not Obama. He’s not Bernie,” Devine said. “Drawing big crowds is more important for Beto [O’Rourke] or Mayor Pete to get into the mix.”
Holly Otterbein, Daniel Lippman, Christopher Cadelago and Anita Kumar contributed to this report.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
o6QNVaOlIC71C4xy
|
immigration
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/gop-conservatives-immigration-bill-senate-93215.html?hp=t2_s
|
'Gang' warfare over Senate immigration bill
|
2013-06-24
|
Burgess Everett
|
A stubborn anti-reform 'Gang of Five ' has been the bill 's loudest opponents . | AP Photos 'Gang ' warfare over immigration
To a small band of Republican senators , the problems with the Senate ’ s immigration reform bill could fill an encyclopedia .
To them , the bill is too long , it hasn ’ t been read , it ’ s been negotiated in secret , it ’ s filled with loopholes , it doesn ’ t do what Gang of Eight talking points promised and Republicans haven ’ t been given the chance to substantively alter it . They ’ ve compared it to Obamacare , warning that a “ cornhusker kickback ” is buried somewhere deep inside the border security language .
Senate enemies of immigration reform are rapidly dwindling after Republican Sens . John Hoeven of North Dakota and Bob Corker of Tennessee struck a border security deal last week that may well push the overall bill over the finish line in the upper chamber . But they are still making a lot of noise , as well as coordinating with outside groups opposing the proposed reform to warn the American people that they are getting a bad deal .
A stubborn anti-reform “ Gang of Five ” has been the loudest opponents : Republican Sens . Mike Lee of Utah , Jeff Sessions of Alabama , David Vitter of Louisiana , Ted Cruz of Texas and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma . These loud-and-proud foes are bucking much of the mainstream GOP establishment — including Fox News ’ s Bill O ’ Reilly — which is now rushing en masse to embrace the bill .
They are employing guerrilla tactics , trying to break up the bipartisan backslapping to speak on the Senate floor or staying until the wee hours of the night to rail against reform . It ’ s an aggressive campaign to kill one of the most significant pieces of Senate legislation in years , pummeling reform advocates on both the process ( not enough amendment votes on the Senate floor ) and the bill ’ s substance ( the bill doesn ’ t solve the problem of those who have overstayed their visas ) .
Despite their opposition , the Senate bill is expected to pass this week by a wide margin . But their complaints may well be picked up by their House compatriots , where reform faces a far tougher path .
They are warning their House colleagues that it may soon be their turn to fight . Cruz has already appeared with the House ’ s Tea Party Caucus at a rally to pronounce the Senate bill as “ utterly toothless . ”
Sessions , the most high-profile reform foe , suggested last week that the bill needs to be sent back to committee . Instead , the group fears Senate leadership and other Republicans are poised to jam a bill through , a note of alarm accentuated over the weekend as the Senate Conservatives Fund urged Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) to do everything he can to halt the bill .
“ I fear we ’ ll be told , ‘ We ’ ve got to pass this bill now ! It all has to be passed now , and we don ’ t have time for any more of these pesky amendments from these pesky senators from all over the great country of the United States of America . We have got to pass this now ! ’ ” Lee said in a prediction of what might happen this week .
Sessions has enumerated his quibbles with the bill in wide-ranging floor speeches even on Fridays , when the Senate is typically out of session .
“ We ’ ll just give amnesty to everybody here and we ’ ll pass a law and we promise it will fix things and we don ’ t really worry whether it does or not . And I can tell you it won ’ t . It won ’ t fix it , ” Sessions said Friday in one of dozens of appearances he has made on the Senate floor — and C-SPAN .
Vitter spent the weekend poring over hundreds of pages of text in the substitute bill written by the Gang of Eight , Corker and Hoeven , tweeting its flaws one by one .
“ Found 8 ‘ emergency spending ’ items so far to hide true costs . Fast-tracking amnesty is not an emergency ! ” Vitter said in one message .
|
A stubborn anti-reform 'Gang of Five' has been the bill's loudest opponents. | AP Photos 'Gang' warfare over immigration
They represent conservatives’ last stand in the Senate.
To a small band of Republican senators, the problems with the Senate’s immigration reform bill could fill an encyclopedia.
Story Continued Below
To them, the bill is too long, it hasn’t been read, it’s been negotiated in secret, it’s filled with loopholes, it doesn’t do what Gang of Eight talking points promised and Republicans haven’t been given the chance to substantively alter it. They’ve compared it to Obamacare, warning that a “cornhusker kickback” is buried somewhere deep inside the border security language.
( Also on POLITICO: Graham: We're close to 70 votes on immigration reform)
Senate enemies of immigration reform are rapidly dwindling after Republican Sens. John Hoeven of North Dakota and Bob Corker of Tennessee struck a border security deal last week that may well push the overall bill over the finish line in the upper chamber. But they are still making a lot of noise, as well as coordinating with outside groups opposing the proposed reform to warn the American people that they are getting a bad deal.
A stubborn anti-reform “Gang of Five” has been the loudest opponents: Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, David Vitter of Louisiana, Ted Cruz of Texas and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma. These loud-and-proud foes are bucking much of the mainstream GOP establishment — including Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly — which is now rushing en masse to embrace the bill.
They are employing guerrilla tactics, trying to break up the bipartisan backslapping to speak on the Senate floor or staying until the wee hours of the night to rail against reform. It’s an aggressive campaign to kill one of the most significant pieces of Senate legislation in years, pummeling reform advocates on both the process (not enough amendment votes on the Senate floor) and the bill’s substance (the bill doesn’t solve the problem of those who have overstayed their visas).
( Immigration reform bill: Full text)
Despite their opposition, the Senate bill is expected to pass this week by a wide margin. But their complaints may well be picked up by their House compatriots, where reform faces a far tougher path.
They are warning their House colleagues that it may soon be their turn to fight. Cruz has already appeared with the House’s Tea Party Caucus at a rally to pronounce the Senate bill as “utterly toothless.”
Sessions, the most high-profile reform foe, suggested last week that the bill needs to be sent back to committee. Instead, the group fears Senate leadership and other Republicans are poised to jam a bill through, a note of alarm accentuated over the weekend as the Senate Conservatives Fund urged Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to do everything he can to halt the bill.
The opponents’ question: What’s the rush?
“I fear we’ll be told, ‘We’ve got to pass this bill now! It all has to be passed now, and we don’t have time for any more of these pesky amendments from these pesky senators from all over the great country of the United States of America. We have got to pass this now!’” Lee said in a prediction of what might happen this week.
( PHOTOS: Pols react to immigration deal)
Sessions has enumerated his quibbles with the bill in wide-ranging floor speeches even on Fridays, when the Senate is typically out of session.
“We’ll just give amnesty to everybody here and we’ll pass a law and we promise it will fix things and we don’t really worry whether it does or not. And I can tell you it won’t. It won’t fix it,” Sessions said Friday in one of dozens of appearances he has made on the Senate floor — and C-SPAN.
Vitter spent the weekend poring over hundreds of pages of text in the substitute bill written by the Gang of Eight, Corker and Hoeven, tweeting its flaws one by one.
“Found 8 ‘emergency spending’ items so far to hide true costs. Fast-tracking amnesty is not an emergency!” Vitter said in one message.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
D1aej9xLtkQ3fpid
|
technology
|
Reason
| 22
|
https://reason.com/2019/06/11/will-antitrust-action-against-big-tech-resolve-anything/
|
Will Antitrust Action Against Big Tech Resolve Anything?
|
2019-06-11
|
"Andrea OSullivan", Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Xander Peters, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon, Zuri Davis
|
Well , it was bound to happen eventually . After near three years of all-out rhetorical war against tech giants , for politically-shifting sins including bigness , too much censorship , not enough censorship , data hoarding , and being too irresistible , policymakers are ready to move beyond cheap talk and start slapping wrists—or more .
Specifically , regulators and Congress recently announced new antitrust scrutiny against Silicon Valley . The House Judiciary Committee cheerfully launched a `` bipartisan investigation into competition into digital markets . '' Nothing can bring us all together these days quite like hating the online services we use most . No particular firms have been named , but we can expect the usual suspects are due for a thrashing .
Regulators , on the other hand , are dividing and conquering . The Department of Justice ( DOJ ) and Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) sliced up the pig , with DOJ taking on Google and Apple , and the FTC going after Facebook and Amazon . The Wall Street Journal reports that Google and Facebook are the real targets , for now .
Tech companies knew this was coming . How could they not ? Presidential hopefuls compete over who wants to break up tech giants the most . New books like The Curse of Bigness : Antitrust in the New Gilded Age by superstar law professor ( and father of `` net neutrality '' ) Tim Wu warn that lax antitrust enforcement could spawn a new Nazism ( really ) . In February , the FTC set up an antitrust taskforce for the sole purpose of preparing actions against the big guys . It was always a question of when , not if .
Bigness is badness in the minds of most people . But in terms of U.S. law at least , being big is not a crime .
Rather , as an essay by my Mercatus colleagues Adam Thierer and Jennifer Huddleston points out , American antitrust is only intended to be used when `` a firm has the ability to monopolize a sector , or it possesses an 'essential facility ' that can not be replicated . ''
Laws like the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act give agencies substantial powers to clamp down on monopolies . So antitrust enforcers have developed a robust jurisprudence on what is and is not kosher . Some things , like price fixing , are so `` inherently harmful '' that they are always illegal .
But in general , the U.S. antitrust approach places the consumer at the center of the analysis . We do n't punish businesses because they have been exceptional at meeting consumer demand . Rather , the government steps in if a business engages in anti-competitive activities that harm customers , like obliterating the competition with low prices before jacking them up on consumers that have no other option—classic monopolistic behavior .
Does n't that just make sense ? Consider the alternative . The government could break up or limit any firm that is simply a great competitor . Consumers are actually served well by this giant . But their competitors of course will grumble for their nemesis to be taken down a few pegs .
In this conception of antitrust , the government essentially protects the bottom lines of competitors who ca n't keep up . Before U.S. courts settled on the economics-grounded consumer welfare standard that has guided U.S. antitrust for decades , trust-busting activities were often little more than handouts to interest groups .
Not only would court cases counterintuitively seek to keep prices high , to the detriment of consumers , judges worked a host of non-antitrust hobbyhorses into their decisions . Maybe one judge had a particular fondness for `` social equality . '' The antitrust decisions he handed down might have aimed for that totally unrelated , arguably impossible outcome .
The European approach to antitrust is more like the muddled U.S. approach before it settled on the consumer welfare standard . Some in the U.S. would like our antitrust posture to be more like Europe 's , but at least for now , it is limited to the scribblings of theorists in the land of the free .
With that crash course in antitrust theory under our belt , we can now ask : What will the U.S. do about Facebook and Google ?
Some people would like to see the companies broken up . They propose surgical cuts : Facebook must relinquish WhatsApp and Instagram , while parent company Alphabet could spin off feeder products from advertising-funded search .
On what grounds ? We know that bigness per se is no crime . Are these companies `` essential facilities '' that left fewer , more expensive options for consumers ?
The problem is that many of these companies ' products cost us nothing , at least in terms of dollars . It does n't look like Facebook or Google have been lowering product quality , either . In general , there 's a lot of competition when it comes to social media platforms and search , even if people choose not to use them very much .
Online platforms like Facebook and Google are tricky when it comes to antitrust because they essentially serve two markets : users and advertisers .
When it comes to users , there are plenty of alternatives . Advertisers , too have plenty of alternatives : they can buy spots on television , the radio , billboards , in newspapers , and even via costumed sign-waver on the side of the road .
But for online ads , there are basically two games in town : Facebook and Google . My colleague Brent Skorup pointed out to me that recent precedent could indicate that the courts will consider `` the ad market and the social media market as components of a single relevant market . '' If so , Facebook and Google could be looking at serious antitrust enforcement .
Antitrust actions take a long time , and by the time a remedy—good or bad—is chosen , the market may have already moved on . This is particularly the case in a fast-moving space like tech . Consider the drawn-out cases against IBM and Microsoft . On the other side of the decades-long court cases , the issues that so vexed regulators had long ago become moot . What were the costs to consumers and innovation in the process ?
The problem is that regulators have a static mindset . They see a slice of a market in time , deem one actor too powerful , and seek to artificially create `` more competition '' to freeze this market in time . But that 's not how markets progress . As venture capitalist Benedict Evans points out , `` Tech anti-trust too often wants to insert a competitor to the winning monopolist , when it 's too late . Meanwhile , the monopolist is made irrelevant by something that comes from totally outside the entire conversation and owes nothing to any anti-trust interventions . ''
In the meantime , antitrust actions are often wasteful , distracting , and can limit consumer choice . We still do n't how this new round of trust-busting will shake out . But it 's a good chance that by the time we 're on the other side , a new class of unassailable giants will have cropped up without regulators noticing . And then we can start the theatrics all over again .
This column has been updated to correct Tim Wu 's occupation .
|
Well, it was bound to happen eventually. After near three years of all-out rhetorical war against tech giants, for politically-shifting sins including bigness, too much censorship, not enough censorship, data hoarding, and being too irresistible, policymakers are ready to move beyond cheap talk and start slapping wrists—or more.
Specifically, regulators and Congress recently announced new antitrust scrutiny against Silicon Valley. The House Judiciary Committee cheerfully launched a "bipartisan investigation into competition into digital markets." Nothing can bring us all together these days quite like hating the online services we use most. No particular firms have been named, but we can expect the usual suspects are due for a thrashing.
Regulators, on the other hand, are dividing and conquering. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sliced up the pig, with DOJ taking on Google and Apple, and the FTC going after Facebook and Amazon. The Wall Street Journal reports that Google and Facebook are the real targets, for now.
Tech companies knew this was coming. How could they not? Presidential hopefuls compete over who wants to break up tech giants the most. New books like The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age by superstar law professor (and father of "net neutrality") Tim Wu warn that lax antitrust enforcement could spawn a new Nazism (really). In February, the FTC set up an antitrust taskforce for the sole purpose of preparing actions against the big guys. It was always a question of when, not if.
Bigness is badness in the minds of most people. But in terms of U.S. law at least, being big is not a crime.
Rather, as an essay by my Mercatus colleagues Adam Thierer and Jennifer Huddleston points out, American antitrust is only intended to be used when "a firm has the ability to monopolize a sector, or it possesses an 'essential facility' that cannot be replicated."
Laws like the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act give agencies substantial powers to clamp down on monopolies. So antitrust enforcers have developed a robust jurisprudence on what is and is not kosher. Some things, like price fixing, are so "inherently harmful" that they are always illegal.
But in general, the U.S. antitrust approach places the consumer at the center of the analysis. We don't punish businesses because they have been exceptional at meeting consumer demand. Rather, the government steps in if a business engages in anti-competitive activities that harm customers, like obliterating the competition with low prices before jacking them up on consumers that have no other option—classic monopolistic behavior.
Doesn't that just make sense? Consider the alternative. The government could break up or limit any firm that is simply a great competitor. Consumers are actually served well by this giant. But their competitors of course will grumble for their nemesis to be taken down a few pegs.
In this conception of antitrust, the government essentially protects the bottom lines of competitors who can't keep up. Before U.S. courts settled on the economics-grounded consumer welfare standard that has guided U.S. antitrust for decades, trust-busting activities were often little more than handouts to interest groups.
Not only would court cases counterintuitively seek to keep prices high, to the detriment of consumers, judges worked a host of non-antitrust hobbyhorses into their decisions. Maybe one judge had a particular fondness for "social equality." The antitrust decisions he handed down might have aimed for that totally unrelated, arguably impossible outcome.
The European approach to antitrust is more like the muddled U.S. approach before it settled on the consumer welfare standard. Some in the U.S. would like our antitrust posture to be more like Europe's, but at least for now, it is limited to the scribblings of theorists in the land of the free.
With that crash course in antitrust theory under our belt, we can now ask: What will the U.S. do about Facebook and Google?
Some people would like to see the companies broken up. They propose surgical cuts: Facebook must relinquish WhatsApp and Instagram, while parent company Alphabet could spin off feeder products from advertising-funded search.
On what grounds? We know that bigness per se is no crime. Are these companies "essential facilities" that left fewer, more expensive options for consumers?
The problem is that many of these companies' products cost us nothing, at least in terms of dollars. It doesn't look like Facebook or Google have been lowering product quality, either. In general, there's a lot of competition when it comes to social media platforms and search, even if people choose not to use them very much.
Online platforms like Facebook and Google are tricky when it comes to antitrust because they essentially serve two markets: users and advertisers.
When it comes to users, there are plenty of alternatives. Advertisers, too have plenty of alternatives: they can buy spots on television, the radio, billboards, in newspapers, and even via costumed sign-waver on the side of the road.
But for online ads, there are basically two games in town: Facebook and Google. My colleague Brent Skorup pointed out to me that recent precedent could indicate that the courts will consider "the ad market and the social media market as components of a single relevant market." If so, Facebook and Google could be looking at serious antitrust enforcement.
But will this brouhaha end up being irrelevant?
Antitrust actions take a long time, and by the time a remedy—good or bad—is chosen, the market may have already moved on. This is particularly the case in a fast-moving space like tech. Consider the drawn-out cases against IBM and Microsoft. On the other side of the decades-long court cases, the issues that so vexed regulators had long ago become moot. What were the costs to consumers and innovation in the process?
The problem is that regulators have a static mindset. They see a slice of a market in time, deem one actor too powerful, and seek to artificially create "more competition" to freeze this market in time. But that's not how markets progress. As venture capitalist Benedict Evans points out, "Tech anti-trust too often wants to insert a competitor to the winning monopolist, when it's too late. Meanwhile, the monopolist is made irrelevant by something that comes from totally outside the entire conversation and owes nothing to any anti-trust interventions."
In the meantime, antitrust actions are often wasteful, distracting, and can limit consumer choice. We still don't how this new round of trust-busting will shake out. But it's a good chance that by the time we're on the other side, a new class of unassailable giants will have cropped up without regulators noticing. And then we can start the theatrics all over again.
This column has been updated to correct Tim Wu's occupation.
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
3thES4gghxCQTugx
|
abortion
|
CBN
| 22
|
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2016/june/supreme-court-strikes-down-texas-abortion-clinic-regulations
|
Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Clinic Regulations
|
2016-06-27
|
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-3 against the Texas pro-life law that required physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and required clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery .
Matthew Clark , with the American Center for Law and Justice , explains to ███ News why the Supreme Court ruling is another example of `` abortion distortion . '' Watch above .
Texas lawmakers argued the measure Rick Perry signed in 2013 was needed to protect women 's health . It required abortion doctors and clinics to meet the same standards for other doctors , clinics and hospitals in the state .
`` The surgical requirement like the admitting privileges requirement , provides few , if any , health benefits for women , poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and constitutes an 'undue burden ' on their constitutional right to do so , '' he said .
Justices Anthony Kennedy , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined in agreement with Breyer .
Chief Justice John Roberts , and justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas disagreed .
Thomas said the court 's decision `` exemplifies the court 's troubling tendency to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion , or even speak in opposition to abortion , is at issue . ''
The law when first signed cut the number of clinics from 40 to 20 . Had it taken full effect the 20 would have been cut in half .
Amy Hagstrom Miller , founder and CEO of Whole Women 's Health , led the challenge .
`` Every day Whole Women 's Health treats our patients with compassion , respect and dignity – and today the Supreme Court did the same . We 're thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open , '' she said .
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also commented on the ruling on Twitter , saying it was a `` victory for women in Texas and across America . ''
`` The fight is n't over . The next president has to protect women 's health . Women wo n't be 'punished ' for exercising their basic rights , '' Clinton added .
The Center for Reproductive Rights says the decision could have `` far reaching implications . '' It represents `` a clear statement by the court about what the standard should be in these types of cases , '' Julie Rikelman , director of the litigation group , said .
Twenty-two states currently have facility requirements that are similar or the exact same as the requirements for ambulatory surgical centers . \
According to The Washington Post the ruling will cast a `` long shadow '' among states with similar laws .
|
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-3 against the Texas pro-life law that required physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and required clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.
Matthew Clark, with the American Center for Law and Justice, explains to CBN News why the Supreme Court ruling is another example of "abortion distortion." Watch above.
Texas lawmakers argued the measure Rick Perry signed in 2013 was needed to protect women's health. It required abortion doctors and clinics to meet the same standards for other doctors, clinics and hospitals in the state.
Justice Stephen Breyer disagreed with the requirements.
"The surgical requirement like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so," he said.
Pro-Lifers: Supreme Court Ruling a 'Sad Day' for Women
Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined in agreement with Breyer.
Chief Justice John Roberts, and justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas disagreed.
Thomas said the court's decision "exemplifies the court's troubling tendency to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue."
The law when first signed cut the number of clinics from 40 to 20. Had it taken full effect the 20 would have been cut in half.
Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Women's Health, led the challenge.
"Every day Whole Women's Health treats our patients with compassion, respect and dignity – and today the Supreme Court did the same. We're thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open," she said.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also commented on the ruling on Twitter, saying it was a "victory for women in Texas and across America."
"The fight isn't over. The next president has to protect women's health. Women won't be 'punished' for exercising their basic rights," Clinton added.
The Center for Reproductive Rights says the decision could have "far reaching implications." It represents "a clear statement by the court about what the standard should be in these types of cases," Julie Rikelman, director of the litigation group, said.
Twenty-two states currently have facility requirements that are similar or the exact same as the requirements for ambulatory surgical centers. \
According to The Washington Post the ruling will cast a "long shadow" among states with similar laws.
|
www1.cbn.com
| 1right
|
evE0WasnXdBNwrDi
|
|
elections
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/12/29/video-is-bill-clintons-sexual-misconduct-fair-game-against-hillary-n2097715
|
Video: Is Bill Clinton's Sexual Misconduct 'Fair Game' Against Hillary?
|
2015-12-29
|
Guy Benson, Katie Pavlich, Julio Rosas, Matt Vespa
|
Following Donald Trump 's inoffensive but unwise criticisms of Hillary Clinton -- the `` schlonged '' affair and the bathroom break cracks -- Clinton 's allies circled the wagons with entirely predictable cries of sexism . Trump fired back with a warning : If treatment of women is an issue Hillary 's campaign plans to raise throughout the campaign , the billionaire wo n't be shy about raising Bill Clinton 's long history of sexual impropriety and alleged abuse . Is that fair game ? Although candidates ' families are typically considered off-limits ( tell that to Ann Romney or Ted Cruz 's daughters ) , Bill Clinton is an explicitly political figure . His wife 's campaign plans to deploy the 42nd president as a top surrogate on her behalf , so it 's fair to say that criticizing him is legitimate . That being said , I made the case on Fox News ' Outnumbered that revisiting all that 90 's baggage could ultimately redound to Hillary 's benefit -- engendering public sympathy for a deeply unsympathetic politician , and playing into her strategy of grievance and victimhood :
As I note in the clip , if Republicans want to highlight Mrs. Clinton 's `` war on women '' hypocrisy , there is plenty of other material to work with . And to the extent that Republicans decide to raise Bill 's history in the context of the campaign , perhaps the strongest angle is to call Hillary out over her complicity in smearing her husband 's accusers -- especially as she panders to the Left 's `` rape culture '' alarmists . And speaking of unhealthy sexual cultures for women , I 'll leave you with this :
The collapse of liberal consulting firm Fizgibbon Media last week stunned many in the progressive movement , but the reasons behind it didn ’ t surprise a tragically large number of women in the field . Founder Trevor Fitzgibbon — a Big Name in the progressive communications world — turns out to have been a “ serial sexual harasser , ” as a former Fitzgibbon employee put it . More than harrassment , too , since his behavior included outright assault in some cases . What a creep ! But not an isolated creep . In fact , many women in the progressive activist space are coming out with similar stories of harassment from colleagues , bosses , clients , members of Congress and other men in positions of power . But few are willing to use their names so far , out of the obvious fear of retaliation , subtle or otherwise . Enter Strength In Numbers , a Tumblr blog founded by two people close to Epolitics.com : Beth Becker and Sarah Burris . They ’ ve created a public online space where women ( and men ! ) in the movement can tell their stories anonymously , and the first posts are sobering . The editors are now sorting through DOZENS of similar submissions to remove personally identifiable information , so expect to see many more accounts of profoundly wrong behavior soon . This . Has . To . Stop . Harassment is a bad thing anywhere , but in this case , it ’ s a deep betrayal of the values of equality and dignity that underly liberal philosophy and the the progressive movement .
Odd that the press has n't been running hard with this story , is n't it ?
|
Following Donald Trump's inoffensive but unwise criticisms of Hillary Clinton -- the "schlonged" affair and the bathroom break cracks -- Clinton's allies circled the wagons with entirely predictable cries of sexism. Trump fired back with a warning: If treatment of women is an issue Hillary's campaign plans to raise throughout the campaign, the billionaire won't be shy about raising Bill Clinton's long history of sexual impropriety and alleged abuse. Is that fair game? Although candidates' families are typically considered off-limits (tell that to Ann Romney or Ted Cruz's daughters), Bill Clinton is an explicitly political figure. His wife's campaign plans to deploy the 42nd president as a top surrogate on her behalf, so it's fair to say that criticizing him is legitimate. That being said, I made the case on Fox News' Outnumbered that revisiting all that 90's baggage could ultimately redound to Hillary's benefit -- engendering public sympathy for a deeply unsympathetic politician, and playing into her strategy of grievance and victimhood:
As I note in the clip, if Republicans want to highlight Mrs. Clinton's "war on women" hypocrisy, there is plenty of other material to work with . And to the extent that Republicans decide to raise Bill's history in the context of the campaign, perhaps the strongest angle is to call Hillary out over her complicity in smearing her husband's accusers -- especially as she panders to the Left's "rape culture" alarmists. And speaking of unhealthy sexual cultures for women, I'll leave you with this:
The collapse of liberal consulting firm Fizgibbon Media last week stunned many in the progressive movement, but the reasons behind it didn’t surprise a tragically large number of women in the field. Founder Trevor Fitzgibbon — a Big Name in the progressive communications world — turns out to have been a “serial sexual harasser,” as a former Fitzgibbon employee put it. More than harrassment, too, since his behavior included outright assault in some cases. What a creep! But not an isolated creep. In fact, many women in the progressive activist space are coming out with similar stories of harassment from colleagues, bosses, clients, members of Congress and other men in positions of power. But few are willing to use their names so far, out of the obvious fear of retaliation, subtle or otherwise. Enter Strength In Numbers, a Tumblr blog founded by two people close to Epolitics.com: Beth Becker and Sarah Burris. They’ve created a public online space where women (and men!) in the movement can tell their stories anonymously, and the first posts are sobering. The editors are now sorting through DOZENS of similar submissions to remove personally identifiable information, so expect to see many more accounts of profoundly wrong behavior soon. This. Has. To. Stop. Harassment is a bad thing anywhere, but in this case, it’s a deep betrayal of the values of equality and dignity that underly liberal philosophy and the the progressive movement.
Odd that the press hasn't been running hard with this story , isn't it?
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
NaQuZwPd1u6UQ49D
|
culture
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/2020/0130/American-Dirt-Who-gets-to-tell-your-story
|
‘American Dirt’: Who gets to tell your story?
|
2020-01-30
|
Stephen Humphries
|
“ I think the publishing industry is moving in the right direction , ” he says . “ I actually feel positive about the opportunities for writers of color in upcoming years . I think [ the ‘ American Dirt ’ incident ] is more of a hiccup along the way than an indication that we ’ re sliding back. ” ( Read the Monitor ’ s review of “ American Dirt . ” )
But bestselling author David Bowles ( “ Feathered Serpent , Dark Heart of Sky : Myths of Mexico ” ) believes that earlier protest campaigns have resulted in more empathetic rewrites that were mindful of people ’ s dignity .
“ Why it ’ s happening now is because it is related to the politics of identity and the feeling that certain groups in society haven ’ t had a sufficient voice and representation , ” says Ian Buruma , former editor of The New York Review of Books . “ If every writer could only write about characters like themselves that would become a very narrow exercise . And the whole point of writing , especially of fiction , is that you can get into the heads of people who are not like yourself . ”
At the heart of the matter is a deeper question : How can fiction best engender empathy ?
The furor over “ American Dirt ” centers around a previously noncontroversial idea : authors using fiction to imagine lives other than their own . To some , the controversy represents identity politics run amok . To others , the dispute highlights a lack of diversity within the most prestigious echelons of the publishing industry .
It was supposed to be the book launch of every author ’ s dream : Jeanine Cummins had scored a rare publishing industry trifecta . She sold “ American Dirt ” for seven figures . A Hollywood studio bought the film rights . Oprah Winfrey anointed it her Book Club pick .
Yesterday , Ms. Cummins ’ publisher canceled her tour and issued a public apology amid a firestorm of accusations of cultural appropriation and stereotyping .
It ’ s a pattern familiar to writers of young adult , science fiction , and other genre fiction . But “ American Dirt , ” industry observers say , is the most high-profile work of literary fiction bound up in a thorny question : Who gets to tell someone ’ s story ?
Ms. Cummins herself acknowledged the debate in her afterword of her thriller about a Mexican mother and son escaping a drug lord by fleeing to the U.S. border . “ As a non-immigrant and non-Mexican , I had no business writing a book set almost entirely in Mexico , set entirely among immigrants , ” she wrote . “ I wished someone slightly browner than me would write it . ”
The furor over “ American Dirt ” centers around a previously noncontroversial idea : authors using fiction to imagine lives other than their own . To some , the controversy represents identity politics run amok . To others , the dispute highlights a lack of diversity within the most prestigious echelons of the publishing industry . At the heart of the matter is a deeper question : How can fiction best engender empathy ?
“ Why it ’ s happening now is because it is related to the politics of identity and the feeling that certain groups in society haven ’ t had a sufficient voice and representation , ” says Ian Buruma , former editor of The New York Review of Books . “ But when it starts relating to fiction or drama or film , it seems to me a very doubtful discourse because , first of all , if every writer could only write about characters like themselves that would become a very narrow exercise . And the whole point of writing , especially of fiction , is that you can get into the heads of people who are not like yourself . ”
The caveat is that authors should strive for verisimilitude . Ms. Cummins has claimed she was “ careful and deliberate ” in her research and traveled extensively on both sides of the border . ( Flatiron Books agreed to the Monitor ’ s request for an email interview with Ms. Cummins , but she hasn ’ t responded to the submitted questions . )
Yet Latino authors such as Myriam Gurba , Daniel Peña , and David Bowles have rebuked Ms. Cummins for employing nonidiomatic Spanish phrases , homogenizing Mexicans ’ regional cultures and geography , and lazily relying on stereotypical tropes such as setting the first scene at a quinceañera . They fret that “ American Dirt ” will leave readers with the impression that Mexico is a hellhole .
“ Cummins identified the gringo appetite for Mexican pain and found a way to exploit it , ” wrote Ms. Gurba ( author of the memoir “ Mean ” ) , whose caustic review notes that Ms. Cummins identified as white in a 2015 essay . In the run-up to the book ’ s publication , the author described herself as part Latino because her grandmother is from Puerto Rico . “ Critics have compared Cummins to Steinbeck , I think a more apt comparison is to Vanilla Ice , ” Ms. Gurba wrote .
By contrast , American writer Lionel Shriver ( “ We Need to Talk About Kevin ” ) has long defended the idea that authors should be free to try on other hats . At the 2017 Brisbane Writer ’ s Festival in Australia , she underscored that point by donning a sombrero at the end of a speech .
“ We all observe each other , ” says Ms. Shriver . “ And part of self-examination is not always availing , is it ? So sometimes others can see things about you that you can ’ t . So I ’ m interested in the observations of people about groups to which they do not belong . ”
Lefteris Pitarakis/AP/File Writer Lionel Shriver , shown in 2007 in her London apartment , has long defended the idea that novelists should be free to write about lives unlike their own .
“ If you ’ re a good fiction writer and a good observer of the world , there are no limits to what you can take on with enough empathy and research , ” says Ms. Shriver . “ You own the whole world for as long as you are here . It is your backyard . It is your experience . And there is no hands off . And that ’ s for everyone , as well as artists . So you have a right to have an opinion about it , to experience it , to think about it , to talk about it . ”
Of late , several genre fiction authors have been called out for misrepresenting marginalized groups that they aren ’ t a part of . The civil war in the Romance Writers of America – which resulted in the resignations of multiple presidents , an entire board , and the cancellation of the 2020 convention – erupted in December after the RWA banned a Chinese American writer , Courtney Milan , for forcefully objecting on Twitter to how Kathryn Lynn Davis described Chinese characters in “ Somewhere Lies the Moon ” ( which was published in 1999 ) .
In the world of young adult fantasy , Amélie Wen Zhao ’ s “ Blood Heir , ” Keira Drake ’ s “ The Continent , ” Laura Moriarty ’ s “ American Heart , ” and Laurie Frost ’ s “ The Black Witch ” were pilloried for alleged racist depictions of characters . Polite critiques on Twitter and Goodreads were about as rare as a starred review for a James Patterson thriller in Publishers Weekly . Consequently , several of those books were pulled prior to publication and revised .
Bestselling YA author Mr. Bowles ( “ Feathered Serpent , Dark Heart of Sky : Myths of Mexico ” ) believes those protest campaigns resulted in more empathetic rewrites that were more mindful of the dignity of groups of people .
“ Very few people are saying that people can not write other people ’ s stories , but what they are saying is it is the height of privilege to believe that you are writing in a vacuum , ” says Mr. Bowles , who notes that relatively few books are subject to headline-making instances of blowback . “ All of this hand-wringing about , ‘ You ’ re trying to censor me , ’ feels like more of a move by white hegemony – often an unconscious move , but a move nonetheless – to continue to marginalize the voices of color . ”
For its part , the publishing industry is very self-aware of its demographic makeup . Yesterday , Lee and Low Books released a survey that revealed that 76 % of employees in the industry are white , 74 % are women , 81 % are straight , and 89 % are non-disabled . In recent years , many publishing houses have striven to promote marginalized authors writing about marginalized characters with # ownvoices marketing campaigns .
The industry regularly employs sensitivity readers to vet books – particularly for children and young adults – for offensive material related to portrayals of race , nationality , gender , religion , sexuality , and ability . In her acknowledgments at the end of “ American Dirt , ” Ms. Cummins thanks more than a dozen Latinos who read the manuscript , including scholars and people at various nonprofit institutions in Mexico .
Some are dubious that sensitivity readers can claim to fully represent a particular group . After all , people within different nationalities , races , classes , and genders aren ’ t homogenous .
“ They ’ re being explicitly asked to make normative judgments , ethical judgments , aesthetic judgments , ” says philosopher and science fiction author Craig Delancey ( “ Gods of Earth ” ) . “ Is the fact that this particular character is a criminal somehow now expressive of certain bigotries ? ”
Their evaluations go beyond fact-checking – they ’ re subjective , says Mr. Delancey . Case in point : Clarkesworld magazine recently pulled the sci-fi short story “ I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter ” – not exactly a common category of intersectionality – when some readers interpreted it as a transphobic allegory . The story had been vetted by sensitivity readers . And it was written by a trans woman .
Mr. Buruma , for one , believes that authors shouldn ’ t strive for sensitivity in an ideological sense of placating readers . After all , many works of literature , including “ Lady Chatterley ’ s Lover , ” “ Ulysses , ” and “ Last Exit to Brooklyn ” have offended readers . Rather , authors should be sensitive to the behavior of their characters , who may well misbehave , as a way to understand the human heart .
“ Fiction has an important role in making us understand not only ourselves better and how human behavior in general works – including our own – but where empathy comes in is that it allows us to get under the skin of people who are not like us , ” says Mr. Buruma , now a professor of human rights and journalism at Bard College in New York .
By her own account , that ’ s exactly what Ms. Cummins set out to accomplish with “ American Dirt. ” She wrote that she wanted to remind readers that “ the people coming to our border are not one faceless brown mass but singular individuals . ”
Some writers , including Ann Patchett and Lauren Groff , testify to being deeply moved by the story . “ When I think of the migrants at the border , suffering and desperate , I think of Lydia and Luca , ” Ms. Groff wrote in a New York Times review , in which she also expressed anxiety over the fact that “ American Dirt ” wasn ’ t written by a Mexican or a migrant .
Sandra Cisneros ( “ The House on Mango Street ” ) remains a staunch defender of the book and believes it could reach audiences who wouldn ’ t pick up one of her books . “ It ’ s going to be [ an audience ] who maybe is undecided about issues at the border , ” Ms. Cisneros told NPR ’ s Maria Hinojosa . “ It ’ s going to be someone who wants to be entertained , and the story is going to enter like a Trojan horse and change minds . And it ’ s going to change the minds that , perhaps , I can ’ t change . ”
But for Daniel Peña ( “ Bang ” ) the plot amounts to “ lab-created brown trauma built for the white gaze and white book clubs to give a textural experience to people who need to feel something to avoid doing anything and from the safety of their chair . ”
Yesterday , Flatiron publisher Bob Miller issued a public apology in which he wrote , “ We should never have claimed that it was a novel that defined the migrant experience. ” The publisher also canceled Ms. Cummins ’ extensive book tour due to “ specific threats to booksellers and the author. ” Ms. Winfrey now says she wants to host a “ deeper conversation ” about “ American Dirt ” on her Apple+ TV show .
Flatiron promises a series of town hall meetings at a later point in which Ms. Cummins “ will be joined by some of the groups who have raised objections to the book. ” Mr. Miller added , “ We believe that this provides an opportunity to come together and unearth difficult truths to help us move forward as a community . ”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
In an interview prior to Flatiron ’ s announcement , Mr. Bowles said he was encouraged by the publisher ’ s response to the Latino writers who ’ d raised objections about “ American Dirt . ”
“ I think the publishing industry is moving in the right direction , ” he says . “ I actually feel positive about the opportunities for writers of color in upcoming years . I think [ the ‘ American Dirt ’ incident ] is more of a hiccup along the way than an indication that we ’ re sliding back . ”
|
“I think the publishing industry is moving in the right direction,” he says. “I actually feel positive about the opportunities for writers of color in upcoming years. I think [the ‘American Dirt’ incident] is more of a hiccup along the way than an indication that we’re sliding back.” (Read the Monitor’s review of “American Dirt.”)
But bestselling author David Bowles (“Feathered Serpent, Dark Heart of Sky: Myths of Mexico”) believes that earlier protest campaigns have resulted in more empathetic rewrites that were mindful of people’s dignity.
“Why it’s happening now is because it is related to the politics of identity and the feeling that certain groups in society haven’t had a sufficient voice and representation,” says Ian Buruma, former editor of The New York Review of Books. “If every writer could only write about characters like themselves that would become a very narrow exercise. And the whole point of writing, especially of fiction, is that you can get into the heads of people who are not like yourself.”
At the heart of the matter is a deeper question: How can fiction best engender empathy?
The furor over “American Dirt” centers around a previously noncontroversial idea: authors using fiction to imagine lives other than their own. To some, the controversy represents identity politics run amok. To others, the dispute highlights a lack of diversity within the most prestigious echelons of the publishing industry.
It was supposed to be the book launch of every author’s dream: Jeanine Cummins had scored a rare publishing industry trifecta. She sold “American Dirt” for seven figures. A Hollywood studio bought the film rights. Oprah Winfrey anointed it her Book Club pick.
Yesterday, Ms. Cummins’ publisher canceled her tour and issued a public apology amid a firestorm of accusations of cultural appropriation and stereotyping.
It’s a pattern familiar to writers of young adult, science fiction, and other genre fiction. But “American Dirt,” industry observers say, is the most high-profile work of literary fiction bound up in a thorny question: Who gets to tell someone’s story?
Ms. Cummins herself acknowledged the debate in her afterword of her thriller about a Mexican mother and son escaping a drug lord by fleeing to the U.S. border. “As a non-immigrant and non-Mexican, I had no business writing a book set almost entirely in Mexico, set entirely among immigrants,” she wrote. “I wished someone slightly browner than me would write it.”
The furor over “American Dirt” centers around a previously noncontroversial idea: authors using fiction to imagine lives other than their own. To some, the controversy represents identity politics run amok. To others, the dispute highlights a lack of diversity within the most prestigious echelons of the publishing industry. At the heart of the matter is a deeper question: How can fiction best engender empathy?
“Why it’s happening now is because it is related to the politics of identity and the feeling that certain groups in society haven’t had a sufficient voice and representation,” says Ian Buruma, former editor of The New York Review of Books. “But when it starts relating to fiction or drama or film, it seems to me a very doubtful discourse because, first of all, if every writer could only write about characters like themselves that would become a very narrow exercise. And the whole point of writing, especially of fiction, is that you can get into the heads of people who are not like yourself.”
The caveat is that authors should strive for verisimilitude. Ms. Cummins has claimed she was “careful and deliberate” in her research and traveled extensively on both sides of the border. (Flatiron Books agreed to the Monitor’s request for an email interview with Ms. Cummins, but she hasn’t responded to the submitted questions.)
Yet Latino authors such as Myriam Gurba, Daniel Peña, and David Bowles have rebuked Ms. Cummins for employing nonidiomatic Spanish phrases, homogenizing Mexicans’ regional cultures and geography, and lazily relying on stereotypical tropes such as setting the first scene at a quinceañera. They fret that “American Dirt” will leave readers with the impression that Mexico is a hellhole.
“Cummins identified the gringo appetite for Mexican pain and found a way to exploit it,” wrote Ms. Gurba (author of the memoir “Mean”), whose caustic review notes that Ms. Cummins identified as white in a 2015 essay. In the run-up to the book’s publication, the author described herself as part Latino because her grandmother is from Puerto Rico. “Critics have compared Cummins to Steinbeck, I think a more apt comparison is to Vanilla Ice,” Ms. Gurba wrote.
By contrast, American writer Lionel Shriver (“We Need to Talk About Kevin”) has long defended the idea that authors should be free to try on other hats. At the 2017 Brisbane Writer’s Festival in Australia, she underscored that point by donning a sombrero at the end of a speech.
“We all observe each other,” says Ms. Shriver. “And part of self-examination is not always availing, is it? So sometimes others can see things about you that you can’t. So I’m interested in the observations of people about groups to which they do not belong.”
Lefteris Pitarakis/AP/File Writer Lionel Shriver, shown in 2007 in her London apartment, has long defended the idea that novelists should be free to write about lives unlike their own.
“If you’re a good fiction writer and a good observer of the world, there are no limits to what you can take on with enough empathy and research,” says Ms. Shriver. “You own the whole world for as long as you are here. It is your backyard. It is your experience. And there is no hands off. And that’s for everyone, as well as artists. So you have a right to have an opinion about it, to experience it, to think about it, to talk about it.”
Of late, several genre fiction authors have been called out for misrepresenting marginalized groups that they aren’t a part of. The civil war in the Romance Writers of America – which resulted in the resignations of multiple presidents, an entire board, and the cancellation of the 2020 convention – erupted in December after the RWA banned a Chinese American writer, Courtney Milan, for forcefully objecting on Twitter to how Kathryn Lynn Davis described Chinese characters in “Somewhere Lies the Moon” (which was published in 1999).
In the world of young adult fantasy, Amélie Wen Zhao’s “Blood Heir,” Keira Drake’s “The Continent,” Laura Moriarty’s “American Heart,” and Laurie Frost’s “The Black Witch” were pilloried for alleged racist depictions of characters. Polite critiques on Twitter and Goodreads were about as rare as a starred review for a James Patterson thriller in Publishers Weekly. Consequently, several of those books were pulled prior to publication and revised.
Bestselling YA author Mr. Bowles (“Feathered Serpent, Dark Heart of Sky: Myths of Mexico”) believes those protest campaigns resulted in more empathetic rewrites that were more mindful of the dignity of groups of people.
“Very few people are saying that people cannot write other people’s stories, but what they are saying is it is the height of privilege to believe that you are writing in a vacuum,” says Mr. Bowles, who notes that relatively few books are subject to headline-making instances of blowback. “All of this hand-wringing about, ‘You’re trying to censor me,’ feels like more of a move by white hegemony – often an unconscious move, but a move nonetheless – to continue to marginalize the voices of color.”
The limits of sensitivity readers
For its part, the publishing industry is very self-aware of its demographic makeup. Yesterday, Lee and Low Books released a survey that revealed that 76% of employees in the industry are white, 74% are women, 81% are straight, and 89% are non-disabled. In recent years, many publishing houses have striven to promote marginalized authors writing about marginalized characters with #ownvoices marketing campaigns.
The industry regularly employs sensitivity readers to vet books – particularly for children and young adults – for offensive material related to portrayals of race, nationality, gender, religion, sexuality, and ability. In her acknowledgments at the end of “American Dirt,” Ms. Cummins thanks more than a dozen Latinos who read the manuscript, including scholars and people at various nonprofit institutions in Mexico.
Some are dubious that sensitivity readers can claim to fully represent a particular group. After all, people within different nationalities, races, classes, and genders aren’t homogenous.
“They’re being explicitly asked to make normative judgments, ethical judgments, aesthetic judgments,” says philosopher and science fiction author Craig Delancey (“Gods of Earth”). “Is the fact that this particular character is a criminal somehow now expressive of certain bigotries?”
Their evaluations go beyond fact-checking – they’re subjective, says Mr. Delancey. Case in point: Clarkesworld magazine recently pulled the sci-fi short story “I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter” – not exactly a common category of intersectionality – when some readers interpreted it as a transphobic allegory. The story had been vetted by sensitivity readers. And it was written by a trans woman.
Mr. Buruma, for one, believes that authors shouldn’t strive for sensitivity in an ideological sense of placating readers. After all, many works of literature, including “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” “Ulysses,” and “Last Exit to Brooklyn” have offended readers. Rather, authors should be sensitive to the behavior of their characters, who may well misbehave, as a way to understand the human heart.
“Fiction has an important role in making us understand not only ourselves better and how human behavior in general works – including our own – but where empathy comes in is that it allows us to get under the skin of people who are not like us,” says Mr. Buruma, now a professor of human rights and journalism at Bard College in New York.
By her own account, that’s exactly what Ms. Cummins set out to accomplish with “American Dirt.” She wrote that she wanted to remind readers that “the people coming to our border are not one faceless brown mass but singular individuals.”
A firestorm or a hiccup?
Some writers, including Ann Patchett and Lauren Groff, testify to being deeply moved by the story. “When I think of the migrants at the border, suffering and desperate, I think of Lydia and Luca,” Ms. Groff wrote in a New York Times review, in which she also expressed anxiety over the fact that “American Dirt” wasn’t written by a Mexican or a migrant.
Sandra Cisneros (“The House on Mango Street”) remains a staunch defender of the book and believes it could reach audiences who wouldn’t pick up one of her books. “It’s going to be [an audience] who maybe is undecided about issues at the border,” Ms. Cisneros told NPR’s Maria Hinojosa. “It’s going to be someone who wants to be entertained, and the story is going to enter like a Trojan horse and change minds. And it’s going to change the minds that, perhaps, I can’t change.”
But for Daniel Peña (“Bang”) the plot amounts to “lab-created brown trauma built for the white gaze and white book clubs to give a textural experience to people who need to feel something to avoid doing anything and from the safety of their chair.”
Yesterday, Flatiron publisher Bob Miller issued a public apology in which he wrote, “We should never have claimed that it was a novel that defined the migrant experience.” The publisher also canceled Ms. Cummins’ extensive book tour due to “specific threats to booksellers and the author.” Ms. Winfrey now says she wants to host a “deeper conversation” about “American Dirt” on her Apple+ TV show.
Flatiron promises a series of town hall meetings at a later point in which Ms. Cummins “will be joined by some of the groups who have raised objections to the book.” Mr. Miller added, “We believe that this provides an opportunity to come together and unearth difficult truths to help us move forward as a community.”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
In an interview prior to Flatiron’s announcement, Mr. Bowles said he was encouraged by the publisher’s response to the Latino writers who’d raised objections about “American Dirt.”
“I think the publishing industry is moving in the right direction,” he says. “I actually feel positive about the opportunities for writers of color in upcoming years. I think [the ‘American Dirt’ incident] is more of a hiccup along the way than an indication that we’re sliding back.”
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
SFzoHlvUaFvQ54dv
|
politics
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-private-email-no-apologies-213349
|
Clinton: I'm 'sorry' the email scandal is confusing to people
|
2015-09-04
|
Rachael Bade, Gabriel Debenedetti, Nick Gass
|
Hillary Clinton sat down Friday for a rare national television interview , a move that could have allowed her to sail into the holiday weekend , reclaiming a bad week of headlines about the vexing email scandal that has overshadowed her campaign and unsettled even ardent supporters .
During the sitdown with MSNBC 's Andrea Mitchell -- replete with gauzy lighting -- Clinton mostly made news for refusing to directly apologize for her exclusive use of a private email account and server while she was serving as secretary of state .
“ It wasn ’ t the best choice , ” Clinton conceded to Mitchell , who asked multiple times whether she was sorry . Clinton repeated that her “ personal email use was fully above board . ''
Clinton then did utter the word `` sorry , '' but seemed to turn the blame on others for not understanding the ins and outs of the scandal .
“ I disagree with the choice that I made , ” she explained . “ At the end of the day , I am sorry that this has been confusing to people . ''
That answer is one Clinton repeatedly alludes to on the campaign trail . And , over the course of the 30-minute interview , conducted before a campaign stop in San Juan , Puerto Rico , the Democratic front-runner made it clear that she takes responsibility for her arrangement — but that she does not intend to start presenting a new explanation or response anytime soon .
Instead , Clinton nodded to a hope that her campaign and its donors have been chattering about for weeks : that her Oct. 22 testimony in front of the House Committee investigating Benghazi will let her more effectively move past the email questions .
“ I am very confident that by the time this campaign has run its course , people will know that what I ’ ve been saying is accurate and that I will have a chance to do that before the entire world , ” she said of her upcoming Capitol Hill appearance .
Clinton ’ s backers expect that Republicans will go too far and make the session look like a partisan spectacle , allowing the former secretary of state to gain control of the national conversation in a way that she has been unable to do since launching her campaign in April .
But that may be wishful thinking . Clinton will still likely have to contend with Foggy Bottom ’ s monthly email release until January — right before the Iowa caucuses , her campaign is constantly fending off questions about her former staffers ’ own testimony , and an FBI investigation into whether any sensitive material was mishandled appears to be in early stages .
This week underscored the threat , with Monday delivering headlines that dozens more of Clinton 's emails had been deemed classified , as State Department readied its largest release to date of her messages . The end of the week was n't much better -- longtime Clinton confidant and chief of staff Cheryl Mills went before the committee behind closed doors on Thursday , for example , just hours after news broke that another of Clinton ’ s one-time aides , Bryan Pagliano , would plead the Fifth and refuse to answer questions when it came time for his own appearance .
It was just another week in the ever-evolving saga of Clinton ’ s emails .
This constant flow of new developments has underpinned a steep drop in Clinton ’ s trustworthiness and favorability ratings while she pursues the Democratic nomination , and her campaign 's chairman John Podesta conceded to reporters on Thursday that the campaign had faced “ headwinds , especially around the email question . ''
And during Friday 's interview — just the candidate ’ s third nationally televised Q+A — Clinton admitted that she was unhappy with the results of a recent Quinnipiac poll that showed the top word associated with her was “ liar , '' followed by “ dishonest . ”
“ Well it certainly doesn ’ t make me feel good , ” Clinton said .
Nonetheless , she showed no signs of publicly changing course on Friday , even while donors and high-profile backers have publicly and privately questioned the campaign ’ s response to the questions .
Top campaign officials summoned the team ’ s highest-level fundraisers to campaign headquarters in Brooklyn on Thursday , largely with the goal of calming any hand-wringing and updating the group on Clinton ’ s email response plan .
“ I feel that I have questions to answer , which I intend to do at every turn with you and others , about the whole email issue , ” Clinton told Mitchell . “ And to keep saying the same thing . ''
Political considerations aside , the candidate was also careful to defend the process by which she turned over her emails for scrutiny , insisting that she had been “ as transparent as I could , ” though she reiterated her common refrain that she wants the State Department to release her emails sooner .
And in response to concerns about whether she inapporpriately shared classified information , Clinton insisted she takes “ classified material very , very seriously , ” noting that she never sent any material marked classified over her private server .
Anyway , she said , she did not give much thought to setting up that server , in the first place .
“ I was not thinking a lot when I got in [ to the State Department ] , there was so much work to be done , ” she said . “ I didn ’ t really stop and think [ about ] what kind of email system there will be . ''
While the email issue has dominated headlines on the Democratic side of the aisle , Clinton ’ s conversation with Mitchell also touched on Donald Trump , who is dominating the GOP polls and whose campaign has upended the national political conversation .
Clinton , no fan of the New York billionaire 's despite attending his third wedding in 2005 , called his candidacy “ a bad development for our political system . ''
“ His campaign is all about who he ’ s against , whether it ’ s immigrants or women broadcasters , or aides of other candidates , ” she said , alluding to his spat with FOX News host Megyn Kelly and his broadsides against Clinton ’ s close aide , Huma Abedin . “ He is the candidate of , you know , being against . ''
As to the question of her “ friend ” Vice President Joe Biden ’ s potential candidacy , Clinton once again declined to speak in depth — though she did use his full name , which she has yet to do for her declared opponents in the race , like Bernie Sanders .
“ He has to make a really difficult decision . You can see him struggling with it , and I just wish the best for him and his family , ” she said .
|
Hillary Clinton sat down Friday for a rare national television interview, a move that could have allowed her to sail into the holiday weekend, reclaiming a bad week of headlines about the vexing email scandal that has overshadowed her campaign and unsettled even ardent supporters.
It didn't quite work out that way.
Story Continued Below
During the sitdown with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell -- replete with gauzy lighting -- Clinton mostly made news for refusing to directly apologize for her exclusive use of a private email account and server while she was serving as secretary of state.
“It wasn’t the best choice,” Clinton conceded to Mitchell, who asked multiple times whether she was sorry. Clinton repeated that her “personal email use was fully above board."
Clinton then did utter the word "sorry," but seemed to turn the blame on others for not understanding the ins and outs of the scandal.
“I disagree with the choice that I made,” she explained. “At the end of the day, I am sorry that this has been confusing to people."
That answer is one Clinton repeatedly alludes to on the campaign trail. And, over the course of the 30-minute interview, conducted before a campaign stop in San Juan, Puerto Rico, the Democratic front-runner made it clear that she takes responsibility for her arrangement — but that she does not intend to start presenting a new explanation or response anytime soon.
Instead, Clinton nodded to a hope that her campaign and its donors have been chattering about for weeks: that her Oct. 22 testimony in front of the House Committee investigating Benghazi will let her more effectively move past the email questions.
“I am very confident that by the time this campaign has run its course, people will know that what I’ve been saying is accurate and that I will have a chance to do that before the entire world,” she said of her upcoming Capitol Hill appearance.
Clinton’s backers expect that Republicans will go too far and make the session look like a partisan spectacle, allowing the former secretary of state to gain control of the national conversation in a way that she has been unable to do since launching her campaign in April.
But that may be wishful thinking. Clinton will still likely have to contend with Foggy Bottom’s monthly email release until January — right before the Iowa caucuses, her campaign is constantly fending off questions about her former staffers’ own testimony, and an FBI investigation into whether any sensitive material was mishandled appears to be in early stages.
This week underscored the threat, with Monday delivering headlines that dozens more of Clinton's emails had been deemed classified, as State Department readied its largest release to date of her messages. The end of the week wasn't much better -- longtime Clinton confidant and chief of staff Cheryl Mills went before the committee behind closed doors on Thursday, for example, just hours after news broke that another of Clinton’s one-time aides, Bryan Pagliano, would plead the Fifth and refuse to answer questions when it came time for his own appearance.
It was just another week in the ever-evolving saga of Clinton’s emails.
This constant flow of new developments has underpinned a steep drop in Clinton’s trustworthiness and favorability ratings while she pursues the Democratic nomination, and her campaign's chairman John Podesta conceded to reporters on Thursday that the campaign had faced “headwinds, especially around the email question."
And during Friday's interview — just the candidate’s third nationally televised Q+A — Clinton admitted that she was unhappy with the results of a recent Quinnipiac poll that showed the top word associated with her was “liar," followed by “dishonest.”
“Well it certainly doesn’t make me feel good,” Clinton said.
Nonetheless, she showed no signs of publicly changing course on Friday, even while donors and high-profile backers have publicly and privately questioned the campaign’s response to the questions.
Top campaign officials summoned the team’s highest-level fundraisers to campaign headquarters in Brooklyn on Thursday, largely with the goal of calming any hand-wringing and updating the group on Clinton’s email response plan.
“I feel that I have questions to answer, which I intend to do at every turn with you and others, about the whole email issue,” Clinton told Mitchell. “And to keep saying the same thing."
Political considerations aside, the candidate was also careful to defend the process by which she turned over her emails for scrutiny, insisting that she had been “as transparent as I could,” though she reiterated her common refrain that she wants the State Department to release her emails sooner.
And in response to concerns about whether she inapporpriately shared classified information, Clinton insisted she takes “classified material very, very seriously,” noting that she never sent any material marked classified over her private server.
Anyway, she said, she did not give much thought to setting up that server, in the first place.
“I was not thinking a lot when I got in [to the State Department], there was so much work to be done,” she said. “I didn’t really stop and think [about] what kind of email system there will be."
While the email issue has dominated headlines on the Democratic side of the aisle, Clinton’s conversation with Mitchell also touched on Donald Trump, who is dominating the GOP polls and whose campaign has upended the national political conversation.
Clinton, no fan of the New York billionaire's despite attending his third wedding in 2005, called his candidacy “a bad development for our political system."
“His campaign is all about who he’s against, whether it’s immigrants or women broadcasters, or aides of other candidates,” she said, alluding to his spat with FOX News host Megyn Kelly and his broadsides against Clinton’s close aide, Huma Abedin. “He is the candidate of, you know, being against."
As to the question of her “friend” Vice President Joe Biden’s potential candidacy, Clinton once again declined to speak in depth — though she did use his full name, which she has yet to do for her declared opponents in the race, like Bernie Sanders.
“He has to make a really difficult decision. You can see him struggling with it, and I just wish the best for him and his family,” she said.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
21V579MBn8zcnbIA
|
white_house
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gingrich-law-created-immigration/2014/11/22/id/609031/
|
Gingrich: Obama Illegally Created New Laws in Plan
|
2014-11-22
|
Sandy Fitzgerald
|
President Barack Obama 's policy on immigration is n't just another new government program , says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — it 's a `` new law , created by the executive without Constitutional authority . `` The president 's prime-time address on Thursday was `` technically a fine speech , '' but `` very little of it was true , '' Gingrich says in an opinion piece for CNN that 's also posted on his Gingrich Productions website.In the president 's address , Gingrich writes , he described `` what sounded like a reasonable plan to prioritize the deportation of felons , criminals , and gang members over the deportation of other people in the United States illegally . `` And , Obama said , the proposal was within his authority as president , but Gingrich notes it `` was not merely a directive to emphasize enforcement against those who have committed crimes , or even a simple pause on deportations for millions of people here illegally . `` Gingrich says the White House actually announced its real policy in a memo from its Office of Legislative Affairs hours before Obama took to the podium Thursday night.That policy is a `` 17-point plan including several new programs without Congressional approval , budget appropriation or spending authorization , and many of which the President either did n't mention or which bore only a faint resemblance to what he described in his speech , '' Gingrich said.According to the White House , Obama has directed the Department of Homeland Security to create a deferred action program to give illegal immigrants work permits for at least three years , and establishes criteria to keep people exempt from deportation . `` It establishes extensive new criteria by which people can register to be exempt from deportation , '' said Gingrich . DHS will have to employ thousands of bureaucrats to process those who `` come forward and register , submit biometric data , pass background checks , pay fees , and show that their child was born before the date of this announcement . `` In addition , applicants will have to prove they have been in the country for at least five years and will have to pay taxes , Gingrich noted . `` Well , a brand new program that hands out three-year work authorizations and processes more paperwork than many state DMVs is not merely saying , as the President put it in his speech , that `` we 're not going to deport you , '' said Gingrich.In addition , the president said his executive action will offer relief to a narrow number of people , but the policy memo says the DHS will `` direct all of its enforcement resources at pursuing '' people who are `` national security threats , serious criminals , and recent border crossers . `` So while one group of 4 million will be eligible for the work authorization program , `` there will be no resources directed at enforcing immigration law against the other 7 million people here illegally as long as they do not fall into a few narrow categories , according to the policy memo.Meanwhile , Gingrich says , Obama is assuring the nation his actions are lawful and the same kind taken by presidents over the past half century.Gingrich says Obama does n't have any congressional sanction like the predecessors he cites and his actions are `` are an order of magnitude larger '' than those previous actions.Gingrich describes the address as `` a Gruber speech , and was designed to sound acceptable , even if it was a lie , a reference to Obamacare co-architect Jonathan Gruber 's statements on how the Obama administration depended on `` the stupidity of the American voter '' to enable the healthcare reform plan . `` Listening to a speech in which the President lied about what he was proposing and lied about his authority to implement it , it was hard not to think of the Gruber model – which is really the Obama model , after all , '' writes Gingrich . `` He said what he needed to say to do what he wants to do . `` The problem is , in the past few years Obama has described on video 22 times how he does not have the legal and Constitutional authority to enact the reforms he announced Thursday night.In 2011 , Gingrich said , Obama said that there are `` laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President . `` But that has all changed , and `` it 's a shame he apparently thinks , like Gruber , that Americans are all so stupid we wo n't figure out he 's not telling us the truth today , '' Gingrich concluded .
|
President Barack Obama's policy on immigration isn't just another new government program, says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — it's a "new law, created by the executive without Constitutional authority."The president's prime-time address on Thursday was "technically a fine speech," but "very little of it was true," Gingrich says in an opinion piece for CNN that's also posted on his Gingrich Productions website.In the president's address, Gingrich writes, he described "what sounded like a reasonable plan to prioritize the deportation of felons, criminals, and gang members over the deportation of other people in the United States illegally."And, Obama said, the proposal was within his authority as president, but Gingrich notes it "was not merely a directive to emphasize enforcement against those who have committed crimes, or even a simple pause on deportations for millions of people here illegally."Gingrich says the White House actually announced its real policy in a memo from its Office of Legislative Affairs hours before Obama took to the podium Thursday night.That policy is a "17-point plan including several new programs without Congressional approval, budget appropriation or spending authorization, and many of which the President either didn't mention or which bore only a faint resemblance to what he described in his speech," Gingrich said.According to the White House, Obama has directed the Department of Homeland Security to create a deferred action program to give illegal immigrants work permits for at least three years, and establishes criteria to keep people exempt from deportation."It establishes extensive new criteria by which people can register to be exempt from deportation," said Gingrich. DHS will have to employ thousands of bureaucrats to process those who "come forward and register, submit biometric data, pass background checks, pay fees, and show that their child was born before the date of this announcement."In addition, applicants will have to prove they have been in the country for at least five years and will have to pay taxes, Gingrich noted."Well, a brand new program that hands out three-year work authorizations and processes more paperwork than many state DMVs is not merely saying, as the President put it in his speech, that "we're not going to deport you," said Gingrich.In addition, the president said his executive action will offer relief to a narrow number of people, but the policy memo says the DHS will "direct all of its enforcement resources at pursuing" people who are "national security threats, serious criminals, and recent border crossers."So while one group of 4 million will be eligible for the work authorization program, "there will be no resources directed at enforcing immigration law against the other 7 million people here illegally as long as they do not fall into a few narrow categories, according to the policy memo.Meanwhile, Gingrich says, Obama is assuring the nation his actions are lawful and the same kind taken by presidents over the past half century.Gingrich says Obama doesn't have any congressional sanction like the predecessors he cites and his actions are "are an order of magnitude larger" than those previous actions.Gingrich describes the address as "a Gruber speech, and was designed to sound acceptable, even if it was a lie, a reference to Obamacare co-architect Jonathan Gruber's statements on how the Obama administration depended on "the stupidity of the American voter" to enable the healthcare reform plan."Listening to a speech in which the President lied about what he was proposing and lied about his authority to implement it, it was hard not to think of the Gruber model – which is really the Obama model, after all," writes Gingrich. "He said what he needed to say to do what he wants to do."The problem is, in the past few years Obama has described on video 22 times how he does not have the legal and Constitutional authority to enact the reforms he announced Thursday night.In 2011, Gingrich said, Obama said that there are "laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."But that has all changed, and "it's a shame he apparently thinks, like Gruber, that Americans are all so stupid we won't figure out he's not telling us the truth today," Gingrich concluded.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
ntNxhnK18HD6e1bw
|
isis
|
Bloomberg
| 11
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-18/obama-says-terrorists-seek-legitimacy-by-claiming-religious-tie
|
Obama Says Terrorists Seek Legitimacy by Using Religious Tie
|
2015-02-18
|
Annie Linskey
|
President Barack Obama said the U.S. and its allies must strip away any legitimacy that Islamic State and al-Qaeda claim by portraying themselves as religious movements .
Obama , who has come under criticism from Republicans who say he avoids acknowledging the Muslim roots of extremist groups , said terrorists use religion as a recruiting tool by portraying the U.S. and European nations as being at war with Islam .
“ We must never accept the premise they put forward , because it is a lie , ” Obama said Wednesday in Washington on the second day of a White House summit on combating extremism . “ They are not religious leaders . They ’ re terrorists . And we are not at war with Islam . We are at war with people who have perverted Islam . ”
Deadly attacks in Paris , Sydney and Copenhagen by individuals of Muslim background and possibly inspired by the brutal tactics of Islamic State , along with the group ’ s spread in Syria , Iraq and now Libya , have raised alarms in Europe and the U.S. about the danger of lone-wolf terrorists , driven by extremist ideology and difficult to detect before they act .
At the summit , the Obama administration is convening representatives of Muslim organizations , law enforcement officials and local political leaders to swap ideas about how to stem root causes of extremism . It also has invited leaders from overseas to take part .
Obama said civic leaders must recognize that Islamic State and al-Qaeda “ deliberately target their propaganda in the hopes of reaching and brainwashing young Muslims ” through videos , social media and other online outlets . He said the one way to counter that is to alleviate the alienation and poverty that are the extremists ’ best recruiting tool .
In the U.S. , he said , local and federal authorities must make sure that Muslims aren ’ t isolated and that they are welcomed and integrated into society .
“ Muslim Americans feel they have been unfairly targeted , ” he said . “ We have to be sure that abuses stop , are not repeated , that we do not stigmatize entire communities . ”
Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore , who is chairman of a political action committee aimed at electing Republicans , called the conference a “ farce ” in a statement and said the administration should be targeting terrorists rather than offering “ pie-in-the-sky social welfare programs ” to Muslims here and overseas .
The administration ’ s strategy is also aimed at drawing in the domestic Muslim leaders who Obama is leaning on to identify and isolate potentially violent extremists . Yet some groups say they remain suspicious about the administration ’ s motivation .
The Muslim Advocates , an Oakland Calif.-based group that that was invited to a White House meeting earlier this month , expressed concern that Obama ’ s requests for “ partnerships ” with Muslim community and religious leaders is code for requiring leaders to play a law enforcement role .
They also blasted Obama for focusing too narrowly on Muslims , a decision that the group says reinforces a negative stereotype that Islam and terror are linked .
“ This whole day is focused on American Muslims , frankly , ” Farhana Khera , the group ’ s executive director , said in a telephone interview . “ It strikes at the core of what we are as Americans . ”
Obama is speaking on the topic again tomorrow at the State Department during a session that includes representatives from overseas , including France , Belgium , Mexico and Japan .
|
SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
President Barack Obama said the U.S. and its allies must strip away any legitimacy that Islamic State and al-Qaeda claim by portraying themselves as religious movements.
Obama, who has come under criticism from Republicans who say he avoids acknowledging the Muslim roots of extremist groups, said terrorists use religion as a recruiting tool by portraying the U.S. and European nations as being at war with Islam.
“We must never accept the premise they put forward, because it is a lie,” Obama said Wednesday in Washington on the second day of a White House summit on combating extremism. “They are not religious leaders. They’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”
Deadly attacks in Paris, Sydney and Copenhagen by individuals of Muslim background and possibly inspired by the brutal tactics of Islamic State, along with the group’s spread in Syria, Iraq and now Libya, have raised alarms in Europe and the U.S. about the danger of lone-wolf terrorists, driven by extremist ideology and difficult to detect before they act.
At the summit, the Obama administration is convening representatives of Muslim organizations, law enforcement officials and local political leaders to swap ideas about how to stem root causes of extremism. It also has invited leaders from overseas to take part.
Brainwashing
Obama said civic leaders must recognize that Islamic State and al-Qaeda “deliberately target their propaganda in the hopes of reaching and brainwashing young Muslims” through videos, social media and other online outlets. He said the one way to counter that is to alleviate the alienation and poverty that are the extremists’ best recruiting tool.
In the U.S., he said, local and federal authorities must make sure that Muslims aren’t isolated and that they are welcomed and integrated into society.
“Muslim Americans feel they have been unfairly targeted,” he said. “We have to be sure that abuses stop, are not repeated, that we do not stigmatize entire communities.”
Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, who is chairman of a political action committee aimed at electing Republicans, called the conference a “farce” in a statement and said the administration should be targeting terrorists rather than offering “pie-in-the-sky social welfare programs” to Muslims here and overseas.
Muslim Outreach
The administration’s strategy is also aimed at drawing in the domestic Muslim leaders who Obama is leaning on to identify and isolate potentially violent extremists. Yet some groups say they remain suspicious about the administration’s motivation.
The Muslim Advocates, an Oakland Calif.-based group that that was invited to a White House meeting earlier this month, expressed concern that Obama’s requests for “partnerships” with Muslim community and religious leaders is code for requiring leaders to play a law enforcement role.
They also blasted Obama for focusing too narrowly on Muslims, a decision that the group says reinforces a negative stereotype that Islam and terror are linked.
“This whole day is focused on American Muslims, frankly,” Farhana Khera, the group’s executive director, said in a telephone interview. “It strikes at the core of what we are as Americans.”
Obama is speaking on the topic again tomorrow at the State Department during a session that includes representatives from overseas, including France, Belgium, Mexico and Japan.
|
www.bloomberg.com
| 2center
|
UEZCNMggqaVlC1mK
|
middle_east
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/13/iran-apology-video-counters-obama-narrative-on-rel/
|
Iran apology video counters Obama narrative on release of captured U.S. sailors
|
2016-01-13
|
Guy Taylor
|
The Obama administration rushed Wednesday to portray the swift return of 10 U.S. sailors taken captive a day earlier by Iran as a vindication of the president ’ s diplomatic outreach to Tehran , but a video showing the disarmed , kneeling American sailors being watched by Iranian guards and one of the sailors apologizing to his captors quickly undercut the administration ’ s self-congratulatory message .
The broadcast of the video on Iranian state TV showed how Tehran seized on the incident to score propaganda points at home before returning the sailors to the American Navy fleet in the Persian Gulf .
U.S. officials acknowledged the two Navy boats were detained after they inadvertently strayed into Iranian waters . In one clip , a U.S. sailor that Iranian state TV dubbed as the commander of those taken captive , said : “ It was a mistake , that was our fault , and we apologize for our mistake . ”
The incident came at a sensitive moment for both the Obama administration and Iran amid the final push to implement the deal struck last summer designed to curb Iran ’ s suspect nuclear programs while easing international economic sanctions on Iran . With the Obama administration claiming that sweeping sanctions relief for Iran is just days away , and Iranian authorities claiming to have done everything to keep up their end of the accord , both were seen to be carefully spinning the incident — lest it derail the deal ’ s impending implementation .
But critics said Wednesday that the video and the treatment of the sailor was just the latest example of Iran exploiting the Obama administration ’ s willingness to tolerate Iranian misbehavior and provocations in other fields to save the president ’ s prized nuclear deal . The seizure came in the wake of Iranian missile tests in October and December that have been condemned as violations of international sanctions .
“ There is no shameful act that Iran can do that this administration can ’ t overlook , ” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen , Florida Republican and former chairwoman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs , told Fox News .
SEE ALSO : White House ‘ pleased ’ with Iran ’ s release of U.S. sailors
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio , a 2016 presidential hopeful who has promised to void the Iran deal if he is elected , said at a South Carolina campaign stop Wednesday that Iran has repeatedly embarrassed the U.S. in recent months “ because they know they can get away with it while President Barack Obama is in office . ”
Several GOP candidates noted that , while the sailors were let go , the administration has been unable to free other Americans still being held in Iranian jails , most notably Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian .
While President Obama did not mention the sailors ’ capture during his State of the Union address Tuesday night , administration officials said vigorous backroom diplomacy , including five phone calls between Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif , helped to defuse the conflict and avoid a lengthy hostage standoff .
The Pentagon did not publicly identify the sailor who appeared in Wednesday ’ s footage , and he may simply have been trying to cooperate with his captors in hopes of receiving safe treatment for himself , eight other American men and one woman who were being held .
In the video , which shows the lone female sailor wearing a head covering in accordance with Islamic practices , the sailor also thanked the Iranians for their hospitality , saying their behavior was “ fantastic . ”
But it was his apology to the Iranians that prompted quick controversy in Washington on Wednesday , because it appeared to directly contradict senior Obama administration officials , who denied that any apology had been given .
Prior to the video ’ s circulation , Vice President Joseph R. Biden told “ CBS This Morning ” there was no apology given to Iran because “ there ’ s nothing to apologize for . ”
A senior State Department official used more careful language when pressed on the matter during a background briefing with reporters later in the day .
“ I can say unequivocally that the U.S. government did not apologize to the government of Iran in any way during the course of this , ” said the official , who credited the direct U.S.-Iranian diplomatic contacts forged under Mr. Obama for obtaining the quick release of the sailors .
But the senior official conceded that concerns soared on Tuesday night that the incident might spin out of control in a way that could destroy the nuclear accord .
“ At front of mind for everybody — including , I would suspect , on the Iranian side — was the concern that there would be the risk of escalation and the spillover of this issue into other issues , including , no doubt , the nuclear situation . ”
In his talks with Mr. Zarif , Mr. Kerry made it repeatedly clear that if the sailors were released quickly and unharmed , “ we can make this into what will be a good story for both of us , ” the official added .
White House spokesman Josh Earnest made it clear the release of the sailors did not resolve a “ long list of concerns that we have ” in the bilateral relationship .
“ That list includes threatening Israel , developing ballistic missiles in violation of a variety of United Nations Security Council resolutions and supporting terrorism , ” Mr . Earnest said . “ But today ’ s outcome is a good reminder that this kind of diplomatic engagement — that has been the target of some criticism — actually does advance the interests of the United States and enhances our national security . ”
The rapid resolution was also seen as a victory for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani , who has promoted greater openness with the outside world despite strident opposition from deeply entrenched Iranian hard-liners at home who opposed the nuclear deal .
“ Rouhani ’ s policy of interaction is working , ” said Iranian political analyst Saeed Leilaz . “ Iran and the U.S. have gone a long way in reducing tensions , but still have a long way to go in improving their contacts . It was a big step forward . ”
In Tehran , Mr. Zarif , a close political ally of the president and a frequent target of the hard-line factions , tweeted that he was “ happy to see dialogue and respect , not threats and impetuousness , swiftly resolved the sailors episode . Let ’ s learn from this latest example . ”
By Wednesday morning the sailors and their two riverine boats had been picked up by a U.S. Navy aircraft from where they were being held on a tiny Iran-controlled island in the Persian Gulf and brought to a U.S. military facility in Qatar . While the Pentagon declined to give details on their identities , officials said they were being debriefed and getting medical exams but were not harmed .
The nine men and one woman were held on Farsi Island , an outpost in the middle of the Persian Gulf that has been used as a base for Revolutionary Guard speedboats since the 1980s .
The small , armed U.S. crafts were sailing between Kuwait and Bahrain on a training mission when the U.S. lost contact . It was not immediately clear Wednesday what has caused the boats to veer into Iranian waters .
One U.S. defense official said the Navy has ruled out engine or propulsion failure . Navigation problems , due either to human or mechanical failure , could not be ruled out , said the official , who was not authorized to discuss details of the incident and so spoke on condition of anonymity .
The sailors were part of Riverine Squadron 1 , based in San Diego , U.S. officials said . When the U.S. lost contact with the boats , ships attached to the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier strike group began a search , as did aircraft from the Truman . The officials also spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the incident publicly .
Top administration officials pushed back strongly at the notion the incident was a sign of weakness and an indictment of President Obama ’ s approach to Iran . Mr. Kerry credited the incident ’ s fast resolution to the “ critical role diplomacy plays in keeping our country secure and strong . ”
“ We can all imagine how a similar situation might have played out three or four years ago , ” when the level of trust between the two capitals was far lower , Mr. Kerry added .
Mr. Kerry made no mention of the missile tests during a wide-ranging foreign policy speech at the National Defense University on Wednesday . Instead , he said the administration believes Tehran is very close to meeting all of its commitments under the nuclear accord .
“ Implementation Day — the day on which Iran proves it has sufficiently downsized its nuclear program and can begin to receive sanctions relief — will take place soon , likely within the coming days , ” he said .
When it happens , hundreds of Iranian banks and officials , who had been involved in the country ’ s previously U.N.-banned nuclear program , will be granted access to billions of dollars in oil assets that had been frozen for years by Washington and its allies .
Republicans argue the relief is unwarranted because Iran has continued violating U.N. resolutions with its missile tests and engaged in a host of other destabilizing activities recently — including carrying out a spate of cyberattacks on U.S. targets and exporting weapons to Syria and Yemen .
The Iranian violations and the detentions of Mr. Rezaian and other Americans hung in the backdrop Wednesday as the GOP-controlled House took up a bill to prevent Mr. Obama from lifting sanctions on Iranian banks and officials seen to be involved in terrorism or Iran ’ s ballistic missile program . The bill passed overwhelmingly but was withdrawn by GOP leaders after a parliamentary dispute over how quickly the vote was gaveled to a close , causing more than 100 lawmakers to miss the vote .
The House is expected to try again — and approve the bill — later this month .
It was not immediately clear how the legislation might impact the president ’ s calculus — or use of executive power — toward sanctions relief . Some Democrats on Capitol Hill said the legislation appeared to be more about “ embarrassing ” the president on the world stage than a serious effort to try and find successful ways to rein in the Iranian regime .
• Dave Boyer and Stephen Dinan contributed to this article .
|
The Obama administration rushed Wednesday to portray the swift return of 10 U.S. sailors taken captive a day earlier by Iran as a vindication of the president’s diplomatic outreach to Tehran, but a video showing the disarmed, kneeling American sailors being watched by Iranian guards and one of the sailors apologizing to his captors quickly undercut the administration’s self-congratulatory message.
The broadcast of the video on Iranian state TV showed how Tehran seized on the incident to score propaganda points at home before returning the sailors to the American Navy fleet in the Persian Gulf.
U.S. officials acknowledged the two Navy boats were detained after they inadvertently strayed into Iranian waters. In one clip, a U.S. sailor that Iranian state TV dubbed as the commander of those taken captive, said: “It was a mistake, that was our fault, and we apologize for our mistake.”
The incident came at a sensitive moment for both the Obama administration and Iran amid the final push to implement the deal struck last summer designed to curb Iran’s suspect nuclear programs while easing international economic sanctions on Iran. With the Obama administration claiming that sweeping sanctions relief for Iran is just days away, and Iranian authorities claiming to have done everything to keep up their end of the accord, both were seen to be carefully spinning the incident — lest it derail the deal’s impending implementation.
But critics said Wednesday that the video and the treatment of the sailor was just the latest example of Iran exploiting the Obama administration’s willingness to tolerate Iranian misbehavior and provocations in other fields to save the president’s prized nuclear deal. The seizure came in the wake of Iranian missile tests in October and December that have been condemned as violations of international sanctions.
“There is no shameful act that Iran can do that this administration can’t overlook,” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican and former chairwoman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, told Fox News.
SEE ALSO: White House ‘pleased’ with Iran’s release of U.S. sailors
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a 2016 presidential hopeful who has promised to void the Iran deal if he is elected, said at a South Carolina campaign stop Wednesday that Iran has repeatedly embarrassed the U.S. in recent months “because they know they can get away with it while President Barack Obama is in office.”
Several GOP candidates noted that, while the sailors were let go, the administration has been unable to free other Americans still being held in Iranian jails, most notably Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian.
While President Obama did not mention the sailors’ capture during his State of the Union address Tuesday night, administration officials said vigorous backroom diplomacy, including five phone calls between Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif, helped to defuse the conflict and avoid a lengthy hostage standoff.
The Pentagon did not publicly identify the sailor who appeared in Wednesday’s footage, and he may simply have been trying to cooperate with his captors in hopes of receiving safe treatment for himself, eight other American men and one woman who were being held.
In the video, which shows the lone female sailor wearing a head covering in accordance with Islamic practices, the sailor also thanked the Iranians for their hospitality, saying their behavior was “fantastic.”
Controversial apology
But it was his apology to the Iranians that prompted quick controversy in Washington on Wednesday, because it appeared to directly contradict senior Obama administration officials, who denied that any apology had been given.
Prior to the video’s circulation, Vice President Joseph R. Biden told “CBS This Morning” there was no apology given to Iran because “there’s nothing to apologize for.”
A senior State Department official used more careful language when pressed on the matter during a background briefing with reporters later in the day.
“I can say unequivocally that the U.S. government did not apologize to the government of Iran in any way during the course of this,” said the official, who credited the direct U.S.-Iranian diplomatic contacts forged under Mr. Obama for obtaining the quick release of the sailors.
But the senior official conceded that concerns soared on Tuesday night that the incident might spin out of control in a way that could destroy the nuclear accord.
“At front of mind for everybody — including, I would suspect, on the Iranian side — was the concern that there would be the risk of escalation and the spillover of this issue into other issues, including, no doubt, the nuclear situation.”
In his talks with Mr. Zarif, Mr. Kerry made it repeatedly clear that if the sailors were released quickly and unharmed, “we can make this into what will be a good story for both of us,” the official added.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest made it clear the release of the sailors did not resolve a “long list of concerns that we have” in the bilateral relationship.
“That list includes threatening Israel, developing ballistic missiles in violation of a variety of United Nations Security Council resolutions and supporting terrorism,” Mr. Earnest said. “But today’s outcome is a good reminder that this kind of diplomatic engagement — that has been the target of some criticism — actually does advance the interests of the United States and enhances our national security.”
The rapid resolution was also seen as a victory for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who has promoted greater openness with the outside world despite strident opposition from deeply entrenched Iranian hard-liners at home who opposed the nuclear deal.
“Rouhani’s policy of interaction is working,” said Iranian political analyst Saeed Leilaz. “Iran and the U.S. have gone a long way in reducing tensions, but still have a long way to go in improving their contacts. It was a big step forward.”
In Tehran, Mr. Zarif, a close political ally of the president and a frequent target of the hard-line factions, tweeted that he was “happy to see dialogue and respect, not threats and impetuousness, swiftly resolved the sailors episode. Let’s learn from this latest example.”
By Wednesday morning the sailors and their two riverine boats had been picked up by a U.S. Navy aircraft from where they were being held on a tiny Iran-controlled island in the Persian Gulf and brought to a U.S. military facility in Qatar. While the Pentagon declined to give details on their identities, officials said they were being debriefed and getting medical exams but were not harmed.
The nine men and one woman were held on Farsi Island, an outpost in the middle of the Persian Gulf that has been used as a base for Revolutionary Guard speedboats since the 1980s.
The small, armed U.S. crafts were sailing between Kuwait and Bahrain on a training mission when the U.S. lost contact. It was not immediately clear Wednesday what has caused the boats to veer into Iranian waters.
One U.S. defense official said the Navy has ruled out engine or propulsion failure. Navigation problems, due either to human or mechanical failure, could not be ruled out, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss details of the incident and so spoke on condition of anonymity.
The sailors were part of Riverine Squadron 1, based in San Diego, U.S. officials said. When the U.S. lost contact with the boats, ships attached to the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier strike group began a search, as did aircraft from the Truman. The officials also spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the incident publicly.
Diplomatic dance
Top administration officials pushed back strongly at the notion the incident was a sign of weakness and an indictment of President Obama’s approach to Iran. Mr. Kerry credited the incident’s fast resolution to the “critical role diplomacy plays in keeping our country secure and strong.”
“We can all imagine how a similar situation might have played out three or four years ago,” when the level of trust between the two capitals was far lower, Mr. Kerry added.
Mr. Kerry made no mention of the missile tests during a wide-ranging foreign policy speech at the National Defense University on Wednesday. Instead, he said the administration believes Tehran is very close to meeting all of its commitments under the nuclear accord.
“Implementation Day — the day on which Iran proves it has sufficiently downsized its nuclear program and can begin to receive sanctions relief — will take place soon, likely within the coming days,” he said.
When it happens, hundreds of Iranian banks and officials, who had been involved in the country’s previously U.N.-banned nuclear program, will be granted access to billions of dollars in oil assets that had been frozen for years by Washington and its allies.
Republicans argue the relief is unwarranted because Iran has continued violating U.N. resolutions with its missile tests and engaged in a host of other destabilizing activities recently — including carrying out a spate of cyberattacks on U.S. targets and exporting weapons to Syria and Yemen.
The Iranian violations and the detentions of Mr. Rezaian and other Americans hung in the backdrop Wednesday as the GOP-controlled House took up a bill to prevent Mr. Obama from lifting sanctions on Iranian banks and officials seen to be involved in terrorism or Iran’s ballistic missile program. The bill passed overwhelmingly but was withdrawn by GOP leaders after a parliamentary dispute over how quickly the vote was gaveled to a close, causing more than 100 lawmakers to miss the vote.
The House is expected to try again — and approve the bill — later this month.
It was not immediately clear how the legislation might impact the president’s calculus — or use of executive power — toward sanctions relief. Some Democrats on Capitol Hill said the legislation appeared to be more about “embarrassing” the president on the world stage than a serious effort to try and find successful ways to rein in the Iranian regime.
• Dave Boyer and Stephen Dinan contributed to this article.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
1BDTGxTCOb9ErjfM
|
white_house
|
Newsmax - News
| 22
|
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ppe-masks-gloves-3m/2020/04/05/id/961483/
|
China Agrees Not to Restrict PPE Exports White House Threatens Take Legal Action
|
2020-04-05
|
Jason Devaney
|
China promised it would not restrict exports of medical supplies hours after the New York Post reported the Trump administration was weighing legal action against Beijing for such actions , reports the South China Morning Post .
`` We will not forget that at the beginning of the fight against the epidemic , many countries gave us a helping hand , '' Jiang Fan , from the department of foreign trade at the Ministry of Commerce , said at a press conference Sunday .
`` Therefore , when the situation in China is getting better and overseas epidemic conditions are accelerating , we are willing to make relevant efforts on the basis of epidemic prevention and control to provide support and assistance . . . China does not and will not restrict the export of medical supplies , '' Jiang said .
The Trump administration threatened legal action against China after allegations surfaced that Beijing is hoarding medical supplies while the coronavirus crisis rages .
According to the Post , 3M and Honeywell — two American companies that make personal protective equipment ( PPE ) in China — informed the White House that China would not allow them to export the products they made there .
Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis told the Post the White House might push back at China using legal channels .
`` In criminal law , compare this to the levels that we have for murder , '' Ellis said .
`` People are dying . When you have intentional , cold-blooded premeditated action like you have with China , this would be considered first-degree murder . ''
The White House could either file a formal complaint with the European Court of Human Rights or address the allegations at the United Nations , the Post reported .
Supplies such as PPE , which include gloves , masks , and gowns , are running low at hospitals across the U.S. amid the coronavirus pandemic that , as of Sunday evening , had killed more than 9,600 Americans and infected more than 336,000 .
Worldwide , there have been nearly 1.3 million cases and nearly 70,000 deaths .
|
China promised it would not restrict exports of medical supplies hours after the New York Post reported the Trump administration was weighing legal action against Beijing for such actions, reports the South China Morning Post.
"We will not forget that at the beginning of the fight against the epidemic, many countries gave us a helping hand," Jiang Fan, from the department of foreign trade at the Ministry of Commerce, said at a press conference Sunday.
"Therefore, when the situation in China is getting better and overseas epidemic conditions are accelerating, we are willing to make relevant efforts on the basis of epidemic prevention and control to provide support and assistance . . . China does not and will not restrict the export of medical supplies," Jiang said.
The Trump administration threatened legal action against China after allegations surfaced that Beijing is hoarding medical supplies while the coronavirus crisis rages.
According to the Post, 3M and Honeywell — two American companies that make personal protective equipment (PPE) in China — informed the White House that China would not allow them to export the products they made there.
Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis told the Post the White House might push back at China using legal channels.
"In criminal law, compare this to the levels that we have for murder," Ellis said.
"People are dying. When you have intentional, cold-blooded premeditated action like you have with China, this would be considered first-degree murder."
The White House could either file a formal complaint with the European Court of Human Rights or address the allegations at the United Nations, the Post reported.
Supplies such as PPE, which include gloves, masks, and gowns, are running low at hospitals across the U.S. amid the coronavirus pandemic that, as of Sunday evening, had killed more than 9,600 Americans and infected more than 336,000.
Worldwide, there have been nearly 1.3 million cases and nearly 70,000 deaths.
Solange Reyner contributed to this story.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
zzw8ORfncyrlNR6J
|
elections
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/us/politics/obama-takes-frenetic-final-campaign-days-in-stride.html?ref=politics&gwh=A65AE5988ADB1CCAD28A19E54443310F
|
His Last Race, Win or Lose
|
2012-11-05
|
Peter Baker
|
It is in moments like these that nostalgia takes hold for a president on the precipice . With each passing day , aides said , Mr. Obama has taken note every time he passes a milestone .
“ This is my last debate prep practice , ” he said at Camp David .
“ This is my last walk-through , ” he said , touring a debate stage .
“ This is my last debate , ” he said after squaring off a third time with Mitt Romney .
The “ lasts ” piled up on a bone-weary final weekend as he raced from Ohio to Wisconsin , Iowa to Virginia , New Hampshire to Florida and back to Ohio , then Colorado and Wisconsin again . What he hopes most is that these are not the last days of his presidency .
“ You can see the nostalgia , the wistfulness , setting in , ” observed Dan Pfeiffer , one of his longest-serving advisers and now the White House communications director . “ The focus here is winning and making the case , but the last campaign of a man ’ s life — you every once in a while pause and think about that . ”
Other than a brief interlude for Hurricane Sandy , the White House has been relocated to Air Force One for months . Mr. Obama half-jogs off the plane and half-jogs onto the stage , his coat off , his sleeves rolled up , his tie usually gone . He has grown hoarse arguing his case . Between stops , he huddles in the plane ’ s conference room , nursing his throat with tea and scratching out his speech in longhand .
His daily routine has been upended , but he tries to keep up his workout regimen in hotel fitness centers . He eats whenever he can , usually whatever the Air Force stewards are serving aboard the plane or something brought in before a speech . Occasionally , when he stops to glad-hand at a pizza place or a doughnut shop , he may snack in the motorcade to the next campaign rally ; at a Cleveland meat shop , he bought barbecue jerky .
He is happier whenever he gets time with Michelle Obama , but she has largely kept a separate schedule . Like any father on the road , he makes sure to call his wife and children every evening . To keep him company in recent weeks , friends like Marty Nesbitt and Mike Ramos have accompanied him aboard Air Force One . Between conference calls on storm recovery on Sunday , he checked out the Chicago Bears football game on the Air Force One television .
The other day , Mr. Obama landed in Chicago to vote and spotted his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel , now the city ’ s mayor , waiting on the tarmac . A huge grin appeared on the president ’ s face , and he pointed at Mr. Emanuel . The mayor grinned and pointed back . The two embraced like long-lost brothers and chatted happily before walking , arm in arm , to shake hands with bystanders .
“ He ’ s got his goal in eyesight , and he ’ s driving to the basket , ” Mr. Emanuel said later . “ He ’ s a happy warrior , I ’ d say . ”
Happier with the debates over . He considered preparations for the first one “ a drag , ” as he put it , and got walloped . It was an eye-opener for a president who has never lacked confidence , a moment when he “ faced his own political mortality , ” Mr. Pfeiffer said . “ The first debate turned a switch for him . He came out of that very focused on ensuring that would never happen again. ” By his own reckoning , Mr. Obama had failed to “ communicate why he wants a second term , ” said another adviser .
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts , who played Mr. Romney during debate rehearsals , said Mr. Obama recognized the peril . “ He just decided in his mind that he needed to bear down and win , period , ” Mr. Kerry said in an interview . “ He ’ s a competitive guy . He ’ s very analytical . He knows exactly what he had not done and exactly what he wanted to do . ”
After coming out stronger in the later debates , Mr. Obama could finally return to the trail , where the affirmation of the crowd beats the pounding of the pundits . The crowds are smaller — he drew 24,000 here in Bristow , compared with 60,000 and 80,000 in his final days in 2008 — but they are enthusiastic , and he draws energy from them .
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 .
“ The president seemed relaxed , ” said former Gov . Ted Strickland of Ohio , who campaigned with him in that state . “ You don ’ t see a lot of anxiety or frenetic behavior . ”
Mr. Obama seems to enjoy his unannounced stops even more , allowing a tiny peek into his interior life . At the Common Man restaurant in Merrimack , N.H. , he met a woman with two daughters . “ You can ’ t beat daughters , ” he said , reflecting on his own , who were , he added , still at a good age : “ They still love you . They ’ re still cute . They don ’ t talk back too much . ”
One of his favorite stops was the employee cafeteria at the Bellagio hotel and casino in Las Vegas , where he greeted kitchen workers and room cleaners . “ For him , that was the people he ’ s fighting for , ” Mr. Plouffe said later . “ He loves stuff like that . That was a unique one . ”
It made such an impression that Mr. Obama was still talking about it a day later . “ That thing at the Bellagio yesterday was great , ” he told reporters on Air Force One . Then , recalling that his press secretary ’ s van broke down , he joked , “ I think every trip we ’ re going to find at least one occasion to ditch Jay Carney . ”
Very rarely does Mr. Obama confront the nearly half of America that polls say do not support him , those who blame him for the economic troubles still afflicting the country . He seemed taken aback at Cleveland ’ s West Side Market when he asked a chicken vendor how business was going .
The vendor later told his local newspaper he had meant only that the president ’ s party had blocked his business that day . But he inadvertently voiced the frustrations of many Americans .
Nor has Mr. Obama faced many tough questions lately , like those about the response to the attack in Benghazi , Libya , since he generally does not take questions from the reporters who trail him everywhere .
Instead , he sticks to generally friendlier broadcast interviews , sometimes giving seven minutes to a local television station or calling in to drive-time radio disc jockeys with nicknames like Roadkill .
With Michael Yo , a Miami radio host , he revealed his first job — Baskin-Robbins , “ paid minimum wage ” — and addressed a feud between Mariah Carey and Nicki Minaj : “ I ’ m all about bringing people together , ” he said .
He relishes rare moments away from politics . He had dinner one night at a Washington restaurant with several swing-state Democrats who had won a contest to meet the president . He had done his homework ; he knew their names and their children ’ s names . But as he tucked into a dinner of salmon , asparagus and potatoes — he left most of the potatoes — he was eager not to dwell on the campaign .
“ We didn ’ t really talk about politics very much , ” said Kimberley Cathey , 41 , a speech language pathologist from North Carolina . “ I don ’ t recall really in the hour and a half we talked anything major about the election , ” said her husband , Ron , also 41 . “ It was pretty much a night away from that . ”
The president did contemplate the possibility of defeat , but said he and his family “ would be fine no matter what the outcome , ” Ms. Cathey said . Mario Orosa , 44 , a technical specialist at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Akron , Ohio , said he had asked Mr. Obama , “ What was the last thing that made you really nervous ? ” The president replied , “ I don ’ t remember . ”
He is not a nervous man . But even his famous cool may be challenged on Tuesday night . For the “ prop , ” it is all over but the waiting , while Mr. Plouffe makes some calls and bothers some more folks .
|
It is in moments like these that nostalgia takes hold for a president on the precipice. With each passing day, aides said, Mr. Obama has taken note every time he passes a milestone.
“This is my last debate prep practice,” he said at Camp David.
“This is my last walk-through,” he said, touring a debate stage.
“This is my last debate,” he said after squaring off a third time with Mitt Romney.
The “lasts” piled up on a bone-weary final weekend as he raced from Ohio to Wisconsin, Iowa to Virginia, New Hampshire to Florida and back to Ohio, then Colorado and Wisconsin again. What he hopes most is that these are not the last days of his presidency.
“You can see the nostalgia, the wistfulness, setting in,” observed Dan Pfeiffer, one of his longest-serving advisers and now the White House communications director. “The focus here is winning and making the case, but the last campaign of a man’s life — you every once in a while pause and think about that.”
Other than a brief interlude for Hurricane Sandy, the White House has been relocated to Air Force One for months. Mr. Obama half-jogs off the plane and half-jogs onto the stage, his coat off, his sleeves rolled up, his tie usually gone. He has grown hoarse arguing his case. Between stops, he huddles in the plane’s conference room, nursing his throat with tea and scratching out his speech in longhand.
His daily routine has been upended, but he tries to keep up his workout regimen in hotel fitness centers. He eats whenever he can, usually whatever the Air Force stewards are serving aboard the plane or something brought in before a speech. Occasionally, when he stops to glad-hand at a pizza place or a doughnut shop, he may snack in the motorcade to the next campaign rally; at a Cleveland meat shop, he bought barbecue jerky.
He is happier whenever he gets time with Michelle Obama, but she has largely kept a separate schedule. Like any father on the road, he makes sure to call his wife and children every evening. To keep him company in recent weeks, friends like Marty Nesbitt and Mike Ramos have accompanied him aboard Air Force One. Between conference calls on storm recovery on Sunday, he checked out the Chicago Bears football game on the Air Force One television.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
The other day, Mr. Obama landed in Chicago to vote and spotted his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, now the city’s mayor, waiting on the tarmac. A huge grin appeared on the president’s face, and he pointed at Mr. Emanuel. The mayor grinned and pointed back. The two embraced like long-lost brothers and chatted happily before walking, arm in arm, to shake hands with bystanders.
“He’s got his goal in eyesight, and he’s driving to the basket,” Mr. Emanuel said later. “He’s a happy warrior, I’d say.”
Photo
Happier with the debates over. He considered preparations for the first one “a drag,” as he put it, and got walloped. It was an eye-opener for a president who has never lacked confidence, a moment when he “faced his own political mortality,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “The first debate turned a switch for him. He came out of that very focused on ensuring that would never happen again.” By his own reckoning, Mr. Obama had failed to “communicate why he wants a second term,” said another adviser.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who played Mr. Romney during debate rehearsals, said Mr. Obama recognized the peril. “He just decided in his mind that he needed to bear down and win, period,” Mr. Kerry said in an interview. “He’s a competitive guy. He’s very analytical. He knows exactly what he had not done and exactly what he wanted to do.”
After coming out stronger in the later debates, Mr. Obama could finally return to the trail, where the affirmation of the crowd beats the pounding of the pundits. The crowds are smaller — he drew 24,000 here in Bristow, compared with 60,000 and 80,000 in his final days in 2008 — but they are enthusiastic, and he draws energy from them.
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.
“The president seemed relaxed,” said former Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, who campaigned with him in that state. “You don’t see a lot of anxiety or frenetic behavior.”
Mr. Obama seems to enjoy his unannounced stops even more, allowing a tiny peek into his interior life. At the Common Man restaurant in Merrimack, N.H., he met a woman with two daughters. “You can’t beat daughters,” he said, reflecting on his own, who were, he added, still at a good age: “They still love you. They’re still cute. They don’t talk back too much.”
One of his favorite stops was the employee cafeteria at the Bellagio hotel and casino in Las Vegas, where he greeted kitchen workers and room cleaners. “For him, that was the people he’s fighting for,” Mr. Plouffe said later. “He loves stuff like that. That was a unique one.”
It made such an impression that Mr. Obama was still talking about it a day later. “That thing at the Bellagio yesterday was great,” he told reporters on Air Force One. Then, recalling that his press secretary’s van broke down, he joked, “I think every trip we’re going to find at least one occasion to ditch Jay Carney.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Very rarely does Mr. Obama confront the nearly half of America that polls say do not support him, those who blame him for the economic troubles still afflicting the country. He seemed taken aback at Cleveland’s West Side Market when he asked a chicken vendor how business was going.
“Terrible since you got here,” the man said.
The vendor later told his local newspaper he had meant only that the president’s party had blocked his business that day. But he inadvertently voiced the frustrations of many Americans.
Nor has Mr. Obama faced many tough questions lately, like those about the response to the attack in Benghazi, Libya, since he generally does not take questions from the reporters who trail him everywhere.
Instead, he sticks to generally friendlier broadcast interviews, sometimes giving seven minutes to a local television station or calling in to drive-time radio disc jockeys with nicknames like Roadkill.
With Michael Yo, a Miami radio host, he revealed his first job — Baskin-Robbins, “paid minimum wage” — and addressed a feud between Mariah Carey and Nicki Minaj: “I’m all about bringing people together,” he said.
He relishes rare moments away from politics. He had dinner one night at a Washington restaurant with several swing-state Democrats who had won a contest to meet the president. He had done his homework; he knew their names and their children’s names. But as he tucked into a dinner of salmon, asparagus and potatoes — he left most of the potatoes — he was eager not to dwell on the campaign.
“We didn’t really talk about politics very much,” said Kimberley Cathey, 41, a speech language pathologist from North Carolina. “I don’t recall really in the hour and a half we talked anything major about the election,” said her husband, Ron, also 41. “It was pretty much a night away from that.”
The president did contemplate the possibility of defeat, but said he and his family “would be fine no matter what the outcome,” Ms. Cathey said. Mario Orosa, 44, a technical specialist at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Akron, Ohio, said he had asked Mr. Obama, “What was the last thing that made you really nervous?” The president replied, “I don’t remember.”
He is not a nervous man. But even his famous cool may be challenged on Tuesday night. For the “prop,” it is all over but the waiting, while Mr. Plouffe makes some calls and bothers some more folks.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
3gevRuXhAyMHVTus
|
elections
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/joe-biden-hillary-clinton-debate-performance-214775
|
7 takeaways from the first Democratic debate
|
2015-10-14
|
Glenn Thrush
|
Nobody expected a whole lot of excitement from the first Democratic debate , and it delivered .
The decorous Las Vegas session was a pillow fight compared with those laugh-riot Donald Trump Republican melees . The reason : None of the five Democrats , especially Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders , were particularly inclined to savage each other , and there wasn ’ t much daylight between them on the issues even if they were in a more bellicose mood .
Clinton , a skilled and aggressive debater , was way more comfortable on the stage than during all those awful , forced-march email interviews and server-centric press conferences . But she had help . Her challengers , especially Sanders , were more intent on proving they belonged on the stage next to her than trying to knock her off of it .
If Joe Biden was waiting for signs of a Hillary Clinton collapse to coax him into the 2016 race , he should have shut off Tuesday ’ s debate and watched the baseball playoffs .
1 . Hillary awakens ! Maybe it was stepping outside herself to become Val the Bartender on `` SNL '' that got the infamously tightly wound front-runner out of her own head — but the woman who won 18 million Democratic primary votes in ’ 08 finally looked like a winner for the first time this year . For all her happy talk of adoring peach-pie interactions with adoring rope-line supporters in Ames , Clinton has always run best for president in grander , more overtly presidential environments . Before Tuesday , her most impressive performance took place in front of an elite D.C. audience at Brookings when she defended the Iran deal last month . This was a bigger stage , one befitting her status , and she projected a waking-from-a-nightmare vibe , comfortable enough to take a few swings at Sanders in the forceful but smooth senatorial way she perfected in two dozen solid debate performances against Barack Obama .
Like a tourist from Brooklyn bragging about his own blackjack system , Sanders crowed about not overpreparing for Vegas — and was walloped by the house during the first hour : When the Vermont independent praised the health care systems of Denmark and Norway , Clinton sensed a Debate 101 opening . “ I love Denmark , ” she snarked . “ We are not Denmark . We are the United States of America . ”
Clinton may not get a bump in the polls , but she flat-out won the debate . Which raises the question : Why , oh why , did she lobby to limit the number of debates to six ?
2 . Bernie gave her a free pass . The indisputable signature moment of the debate came about halfway through when Sanders , in the unaffected style that has won him so many admirers , expressed what seemed to be a heartfelt sentiment that ran counter to his own interests . “ The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails , ” Sanders declared , after Clinton tried ( with limited success ) to divert the inevitable email interrogation into an attack on the Republican-steered House Benghazi committee .
Clinton reacted to her gallows reprieve with undisguised relief . She smiled from ear to ear and grabbed Sanders ’ hand — a cheerful reversal of Rick Lazio ’ s infamous attempt to invade her podium personal space during a 2000 Senate debate . “ Thank you , Bernie , ” she said to thunderous applause . Sanders might yet have the last laugh : Clinton may have dodged a grilling among her fellow Democrats — but he came off as a magnanimous mensch , not the old , scolding uncle many Clinton backers have painted him to be .
3 . O ’ Malley was the odd man out . No serious candidate ( with the exception of Scott Walker ) has underperformed quite as dramatically as former Maryland Gov . Martin O ’ Malley , who is registering low single digits everywhere — including his home state . It wasn ’ t that he was bad on Tuesday night ; he just slipped through the cracks , a liberal candidate trapped between an electrifying socialist and an increasingly progressive Clinton . The fact that the Democrats agree , in general terms , on virtually every policy area ( there ’ s no comparable split , for instance , on immigration reform as there is in the GOP field ) left O ’ Malley with precious little to differentiate himself from Clinton and Sanders . Add to that a bland delivery and lack of laugh lines — and there ’ s little reason to believe O ’ Malley revived his flagging candidacy .
4 . A Trump-less debate is a smarter debate . Say what you want about the Democrats , they are a wonk pack . If you want two hours of personal combat with extended exchanges about The Donald ’ s hair , Carly Fiorina ’ s face , Rand Paul ’ s height or Jeb Bush ’ s testosterone levels , tune into the next GOP debate in a couple of weeks . If you had a hankering for the finer points of drug sentencing laws , the relative merits of Glass-Steagall vs. Dodd-Frank or the details of Clinton ’ s college tuition plan , this was the debate for you .
The civility of the discourse was also smart politics : Polls show that a vast majority of Democrats , even those who question her trustworthiness , are still broadly supportive of Clinton and are turned off by the kind of unrestricted verbal combat that has made the Republican scrums must-see TV .
5 . Clinton did OK on emails — Wall Street , not so much . If Sanders was willing to give Clinton a pass on her scandals , he laser-focused on the issue at the core of his appeal to anti-establishment Democrats : economic inequality and sundry abuses of the financial services industry . “ Congress does n't regulate Wall Street . Wall Street regulates Congress , '' Sanders said . `` Saying ‘ please do the right thing ’ is kind of naive . ''
Sanders , allying himself with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , has called for the breakup of the biggest banks to avoid the unfair centralization of capital and another financial crisis ; he ’ s been outspoken in opposing the appointment of Wall Street officials to the Treasury Department and regulatory agencies . Clinton has called for tighter regulation but doesn ’ t back the bank breakup — and she took substantial speaking fees from major Wall Street firms , including more than $ 600,000 from Goldman Sachs .
Compared with Sanders ’ battle cry , Clinton ’ s rhetoric seemed tepid and reactive . `` I represented Wall Street when I was a senator from New York , '' she said . `` I went to Wall Street and said , 'Cut it out . ' '' Not exactly pitchforks .
6 . Sanders can ’ t handle a gun . The Clinton campaign knew Sanders would out-Warren them on Wall Street — so they sprung a trap on the Brooklyn-bred Vermonter on guns , specifically his five votes in opposition to the Bill Clinton-backed Brady bill in the early 1990s when Sanders was a congressman . For once , Clinton had a force multiplier — Maryland Gov . Martin O ’ Malley , whose super PAC has already run anti-Sanders ads , criticizing the votes . The two squeezed Sanders , whose broader appeal rests on his honesty and authenticity , as he stammered and squirmed .
He seemed unprepared : He said something about representing a “ rural state , ” then called a recent vote against holding gun manufacturers liable for violence “ large and complicated . ”
Clinton scowled . “ I was in the Senate at the same time , ” she shot back . “ It wasn ’ t that complicated to me . ”
7 . Chafee and Webb were subatomic . Nobody expected Lincoln Chafee , who somehow managed to register a single percentage point in recent polls , to make much noise . The sole exception was his explanation for voting against a key bank-regulation bill when serving in the Senate as a Republican from Rhode Island : He said he was too much of a newbie to know better — and was grieving over his father ’ s death at the time .
Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb , a former Navy secretary known for his way with words , whined endlessly about not getting enough mic time — then proceeded to meander through the questions he was asked . His one memorable moment came when moderator Anderson Cooper asked the candidates which enemies they were most proud of making . Clinton nailed it by answering “ the Iranians ” and “ Republicans . ”
Webb , a glowering , muscle-bound presence at the end of the stage , responded with a chilling story about his tour in ‘ Nam . “ I ’ d have to say the enemy soldier that threw the grenade that wounded me , but he ’ s not around right now to talk , ” he said to nervous laughter in the hall .
|
Nobody expected a whole lot of excitement from the first Democratic debate, and it delivered.
The decorous Las Vegas session was a pillow fight compared with those laugh-riot Donald Trump Republican melees. The reason: None of the five Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, were particularly inclined to savage each other, and there wasn’t much daylight between them on the issues even if they were in a more bellicose mood.
Story Continued Below
Clinton, a skilled and aggressive debater, was way more comfortable on the stage than during all those awful, forced-march email interviews and server-centric press conferences. But she had help. Her challengers, especially Sanders, were more intent on proving they belonged on the stage next to her than trying to knock her off of it.
If Joe Biden was waiting for signs of a Hillary Clinton collapse to coax him into the 2016 race, he should have shut off Tuesday’s debate and watched the baseball playoffs.
Here are seven takeaways:
1. Hillary awakens! Maybe it was stepping outside herself to become Val the Bartender on "SNL" that got the infamously tightly wound front-runner out of her own head — but the woman who won 18 million Democratic primary votes in ’08 finally looked like a winner for the first time this year. For all her happy talk of adoring peach-pie interactions with adoring rope-line supporters in Ames, Clinton has always run best for president in grander, more overtly presidential environments. Before Tuesday, her most impressive performance took place in front of an elite D.C. audience at Brookings when she defended the Iran deal last month. This was a bigger stage, one befitting her status, and she projected a waking-from-a-nightmare vibe, comfortable enough to take a few swings at Sanders in the forceful but smooth senatorial way she perfected in two dozen solid debate performances against Barack Obama.
Like a tourist from Brooklyn bragging about his own blackjack system, Sanders crowed about not overpreparing for Vegas — and was walloped by the house during the first hour: When the Vermont independent praised the health care systems of Denmark and Norway, Clinton sensed a Debate 101 opening. “I love Denmark,” she snarked. “We are not Denmark. We are the United States of America.”
Clinton may not get a bump in the polls, but she flat-out won the debate. Which raises the question: Why, oh why, did she lobby to limit the number of debates to six?
2. Bernie gave her a free pass. The indisputable signature moment of the debate came about halfway through when Sanders, in the unaffected style that has won him so many admirers, expressed what seemed to be a heartfelt sentiment that ran counter to his own interests. “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails,” Sanders declared, after Clinton tried (with limited success) to divert the inevitable email interrogation into an attack on the Republican-steered House Benghazi committee.
Clinton reacted to her gallows reprieve with undisguised relief. She smiled from ear to ear and grabbed Sanders’ hand — a cheerful reversal of Rick Lazio’s infamous attempt to invade her podium personal space during a 2000 Senate debate. “Thank you, Bernie,” she said to thunderous applause. Sanders might yet have the last laugh: Clinton may have dodged a grilling among her fellow Democrats — but he came off as a magnanimous mensch, not the old, scolding uncle many Clinton backers have painted him to be.
3. O’Malley was the odd man out. No serious candidate (with the exception of Scott Walker) has underperformed quite as dramatically as former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who is registering low single digits everywhere — including his home state. It wasn’t that he was bad on Tuesday night; he just slipped through the cracks, a liberal candidate trapped between an electrifying socialist and an increasingly progressive Clinton. The fact that the Democrats agree, in general terms, on virtually every policy area (there’s no comparable split, for instance, on immigration reform as there is in the GOP field) left O’Malley with precious little to differentiate himself from Clinton and Sanders. Add to that a bland delivery and lack of laugh lines — and there’s little reason to believe O’Malley revived his flagging candidacy.
4. A Trump-less debate is a smarter debate. Say what you want about the Democrats, they are a wonk pack. If you want two hours of personal combat with extended exchanges about The Donald’s hair, Carly Fiorina’s face, Rand Paul’s height or Jeb Bush’s testosterone levels, tune into the next GOP debate in a couple of weeks. If you had a hankering for the finer points of drug sentencing laws, the relative merits of Glass-Steagall vs. Dodd-Frank or the details of Clinton’s college tuition plan, this was the debate for you.
The civility of the discourse was also smart politics: Polls show that a vast majority of Democrats, even those who question her trustworthiness, are still broadly supportive of Clinton and are turned off by the kind of unrestricted verbal combat that has made the Republican scrums must-see TV.
5. Clinton did OK on emails — Wall Street, not so much. If Sanders was willing to give Clinton a pass on her scandals, he laser-focused on the issue at the core of his appeal to anti-establishment Democrats: economic inequality and sundry abuses of the financial services industry. “Congress doesn't regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress," Sanders said. "Saying ‘please do the right thing’ is kind of naive."
Sanders, allying himself with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has called for the breakup of the biggest banks to avoid the unfair centralization of capital and another financial crisis; he’s been outspoken in opposing the appointment of Wall Street officials to the Treasury Department and regulatory agencies. Clinton has called for tighter regulation but doesn’t back the bank breakup — and she took substantial speaking fees from major Wall Street firms, including more than $600,000 from Goldman Sachs.
Compared with Sanders’ battle cry, Clinton’s rhetoric seemed tepid and reactive. "I represented Wall Street when I was a senator from New York," she said. "I went to Wall Street and said, 'Cut it out.'" Not exactly pitchforks.
6. Sanders can’t handle a gun. The Clinton campaign knew Sanders would out-Warren them on Wall Street — so they sprung a trap on the Brooklyn-bred Vermonter on guns, specifically his five votes in opposition to the Bill Clinton-backed Brady bill in the early 1990s when Sanders was a congressman. For once, Clinton had a force multiplier — Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, whose super PAC has already run anti-Sanders ads, criticizing the votes. The two squeezed Sanders, whose broader appeal rests on his honesty and authenticity, as he stammered and squirmed.
He seemed unprepared: He said something about representing a “rural state,” then called a recent vote against holding gun manufacturers liable for violence “large and complicated.”
Clinton scowled. “I was in the Senate at the same time,” she shot back. “It wasn’t that complicated to me.”
7. Chafee and Webb were subatomic. Nobody expected Lincoln Chafee, who somehow managed to register a single percentage point in recent polls, to make much noise. The sole exception was his explanation for voting against a key bank-regulation bill when serving in the Senate as a Republican from Rhode Island: He said he was too much of a newbie to know better — and was grieving over his father’s death at the time.
Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, a former Navy secretary known for his way with words, whined endlessly about not getting enough mic time — then proceeded to meander through the questions he was asked. His one memorable moment came when moderator Anderson Cooper asked the candidates which enemies they were most proud of making. Clinton nailed it by answering “the Iranians” and “Republicans.”
Webb, a glowering, muscle-bound presence at the end of the stage, responded with a chilling story about his tour in ‘Nam. “I’d have to say the enemy soldier that threw the grenade that wounded me, but he’s not around right now to talk,” he said to nervous laughter in the hall.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
bHAts6pQRwqYuUA2
|
us_house
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50481877
|
Trump impeachment inquiry: Did Republican witnesses help Democrats more?
|
Anthony Zurcher, North America Reporter
|
On day three of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry , the witnesses included top aides who listened in on President Trump 's call with Ukraine 's leader . What did we learn ?
One was a decorated Iraq War veteran who was born in Ukraine and came to the US as a child , Lt Col Alexander Vindman .
The other was US Vice-President Mike Pence 's top adviser on Russia , Jennifer Williams .
With the TV cameras rolling on Capitol Hill , they repeated concerns they had aired behind closed doors about the July phone call between the two leaders .
But much of Tuesday 's hearing was spent talking about a person who was probably not even in the room - the whistleblower .
Did Alexander Vindman talk to the whistleblower about Trump 's 25 July phone call with Ukraine 's president ?
That certainly seems to be what Republican Devin Nunes believes .
After a few questions about Hunter Biden and Ukraine , Nunes started asking the two witnesses about whether they spoke to the press about the now famous Trump phone call .
He started with Jennifer Williams , who said she did not , but that was just a feint . The real fireworks came when Vindman spoke of the two people he talked to . The first was George Kent , the senior State Department Ukraine expert who had himself testified before the committee last week .
For those who have n't been following closely , it has been widely reported that the whistleblower - the individual whose complaint set off the chain reaction that has led to these impeachment hearings - was a member of the intelligence community .
When Democrat Adam Schiff cut in , saying `` these proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower '' , the audience let out an audible `` oooh '' .
But Vindman has testified that he does n't know who the whistleblower is , Nunes responded , so how could he out that person ?
When Nunes referred to Vindman as `` Mr '' , the Army officer curtly corrected him that it he should be addressed as `` Lieutenant Colonel Vindman '' .
Despite being pressed , Vindman and his lawyer dug in . He would not name names . Democrats have asserted that the impeachment investigation has become much bigger than the whistleblower , whose original complaint has been largely corroborated and whose identity is protected under federal law .
Republicans - from the president on down - return time and time again to the whistleblower 's identity , however , and what motivations he may have had to file his complaint .
They may believe that if they undercut that person 's credibility , the rest of the allegations will be treated with greater scepticism .
In his Wednesday morning testimony , Vindman spoke of a 10 July White House meeting with Ukrainian officials where Gordon Sondland , the US ambassador to the EU , twice brought up announcing investigations in exchange for a White House visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky .
The first time , he says , National Security Advisor John Bolton abruptly cut the meeting short . Vindman testified that after a brief photo session , Sondland once again spoke of investigations of the Bidens , Ukrainian energy company Burisma and alleged Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election .
Other Democratic questioning attempted to place Donald Trump 's 25 July phone call with Zelensky , to which Vindman also was a first-hand witness , within the context of Sondland 's Ukrainian efforts .
Vindman testified that it seemed like Zelensky was `` prepped '' for Trump 's ask for a Biden investigation . They suggested that the 10 July Sondland activity was exactly that kind of prepping .
If what Vindman said was important , how he said it in the public hearings also mattered .
Behind closed doors , veteran ambassadors Bill Taylor and Marie Yovanovitch were reportedly smooth while Vindman was halting and nervous . Those observations have been confirmed by their public testimony .
When Vindman delivered his opening statement , a few yards from where I was seated , his hands trembled slightly . He occasionally stumbled over his words .
Republicans could paint that as weakness or uncertainty , but it might also be seen by Americans as giving his testimony a touch of humanity - particularly when paired with the emotional closing words to Vindman 's opening statement .
Vindman offered reassurance to his father , who brought his children to the US from the Soviet Union 40 years ago , that he was sitting in the US Capitol and would be `` fine for telling the truth '' .
Toward the end of Vindman 's appearance , he was asked by a Democratic congressman to read that line again - and then added why he 's not afraid of testifying today .
`` Because this is America , '' he said . `` This is the country I have served and defended ... and here , right matters . ''
A smattering of applause broke out from supporters in the hearing-room audience . But Vindman 's testimony will only add to the contentious debate among Democrats and Republicans over who is right and exactly what the truth is .
Later on Tuesday , the lawmakers heard from former National Security Council official Tim Morrison and US ex-special to Ukraine Kurt Volker . They had been listed as two men Republicans wanted to talk to during the public impeachment hearings .
It turns out they hurt Donald Trump 's defence as much as they helped it .
Morrison did say there was nothing illegal or concerning about Donald Trump 's 25 July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and no ill motive for moving the rough transcript of that call to a more secure government server .
He also , however , corroborated reports that US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland pressured Ukraine to open investigations that could prove politically helpful to Donald Trump - and that Sondland was in regular contact with the president .
Volker said he recalled past instances where the US had held up aid to a foreign nation and saw no evidence of bribery in this case , but he also turned out to be a character witness for Joe Biden .
Not only did he assert that there was nothing untoward about the former vice-president 's dealings with Ukraine , but he expressed dismay to learn that when Trump administration officials were calling for investigations into Ukrainian energy company Burisma , they were really looking to damage the Democratic presidential hopeful .
That , and his acknowledgement that military aid may have been held up to increase the pressure on Ukraine , represented a change from Volker 's closed-door testimony - given as one of the investigation 's first witnesses .
Democrats may suspect that Volker 's new assertion is convenient naiveté or intentional obliviousness to avoid culpability , but it means his testimony still was of relatively little use for Republicans .
Now the stage is set for Wednesday 's appearance by Sondland - a man whose name came up throughout the day on Tuesday . The ambassador has already had to revise earlier sworn testimony to reflect memories he said were refreshed by other witnesses . He 'll be further pressed by both Democrats and Republicans in what could be the most unpredictable appearance of any of the witnesses so far .
Republican Congressman Mark Meadows of North Carolina , one of the president 's most ardent defenders , calls Sondland a `` wild card '' . Tomorrow we may have a better idea which side has a winning hand .
For Americans watching the impeachment hearings , it often seemed as though the Democrats and Republicans were n't just talking across each other , they 're not even existing in the same political universe .
That divergence of realities was on stark display from the start of Tuesday 's proceedings , as Democrat Adam Schiff and Republican Devin Nunes gave their opening remarks .
As he had in the previous two days of hearings , Schiff used his time to lay out what he views as the case against Donald Trump . He described the president 's alleged `` scheme '' to pressure the Ukrainian government to open investigations of Democrats that could be politically beneficial to him .
He noted witness testimony of instances of this Ukrainian pressure .
He cited Saturday 's closed door deposition by US Ukraine-based diplomat David Holmes , who said he overheard a call during which Trump asked US Ambassador to EU Gordon Sondland about the `` investigations '' . Sondland , Holmes said , would later observe that the president did n't care about Ukraine beyond how the investigations could help him personally .
Nunes , in his five-minute statement , declined to offer a line-by-line defence of the president . Instead , he went on the attack .
He said media coverage of last week 's impeachment hearings were biased in favour of the Democrats . He called out CNN , the Guardian , Slate , the Daily Beast , New York magazine and others by name . He said their coverage of Robert Mueller 's special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election was frequently wrong , and the Ukraine story was simply a continuation of a campaign to oust the president .
Democrats , in these hearings , are trying to set out a series of facts that they say point to presidential abuse of power and could constitute an impeachable offence . The Republican strategy , at least at this point , is to encourage Americans that they ca n't trust the facts - or the mainstream media outlets that are reporting them .
|
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Why did this impeachment witness earn applause?
On day three of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry, the witnesses included top aides who listened in on President Trump's call with Ukraine's leader. What did we learn?
One was a decorated Iraq War veteran who was born in Ukraine and came to the US as a child, Lt Col Alexander Vindman.
The other was US Vice-President Mike Pence's top adviser on Russia, Jennifer Williams.
With the TV cameras rolling on Capitol Hill, they repeated concerns they had aired behind closed doors about the July phone call between the two leaders.
But much of Tuesday's hearing was spent talking about a person who was probably not even in the room - the whistleblower.
Here are my takeaways.
'I do not know who the whistleblower is'
Did Alexander Vindman talk to the whistleblower about Trump's 25 July phone call with Ukraine's president?
That certainly seems to be what Republican Devin Nunes believes.
After a few questions about Hunter Biden and Ukraine, Nunes started asking the two witnesses about whether they spoke to the press about the now famous Trump phone call.
He started with Jennifer Williams, who said she did not, but that was just a feint. The real fireworks came when Vindman spoke of the two people he talked to. The first was George Kent, the senior State Department Ukraine expert who had himself testified before the committee last week.
The other was... an intelligence community official.
For those who haven't been following closely, it has been widely reported that the whistleblower - the individual whose complaint set off the chain reaction that has led to these impeachment hearings - was a member of the intelligence community.
When Democrat Adam Schiff cut in, saying "these proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower", the audience let out an audible "oooh".
But Vindman has testified that he doesn't know who the whistleblower is, Nunes responded, so how could he out that person?
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption A beginner's guide to impeachment and Trump
Things got tense.
When Nunes referred to Vindman as "Mr", the Army officer curtly corrected him that it he should be addressed as "Lieutenant Colonel Vindman".
Despite being pressed, Vindman and his lawyer dug in. He would not name names. Democrats have asserted that the impeachment investigation has become much bigger than the whistleblower, whose original complaint has been largely corroborated and whose identity is protected under federal law.
Republicans - from the president on down - return time and time again to the whistleblower's identity, however, and what motivations he may have had to file his complaint.
They may believe that if they undercut that person's credibility, the rest of the allegations will be treated with greater scepticism.
Body language
In his Wednesday morning testimony, Vindman spoke of a 10 July White House meeting with Ukrainian officials where Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the EU, twice brought up announcing investigations in exchange for a White House visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The first time, he says, National Security Advisor John Bolton abruptly cut the meeting short. Vindman testified that after a brief photo session, Sondland once again spoke of investigations of the Bidens, Ukrainian energy company Burisma and alleged Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.
Other Democratic questioning attempted to place Donald Trump's 25 July phone call with Zelensky, to which Vindman also was a first-hand witness, within the context of Sondland's Ukrainian efforts.
Vindman testified that it seemed like Zelensky was "prepped" for Trump's ask for a Biden investigation. They suggested that the 10 July Sondland activity was exactly that kind of prepping.
If what Vindman said was important, how he said it in the public hearings also mattered.
Behind closed doors, veteran ambassadors Bill Taylor and Marie Yovanovitch were reportedly smooth while Vindman was halting and nervous. Those observations have been confirmed by their public testimony.
When Vindman delivered his opening statement, a few yards from where I was seated, his hands trembled slightly. He occasionally stumbled over his words.
Image copyright Reuters
Republicans could paint that as weakness or uncertainty, but it might also be seen by Americans as giving his testimony a touch of humanity - particularly when paired with the emotional closing words to Vindman's opening statement.
Vindman offered reassurance to his father, who brought his children to the US from the Soviet Union 40 years ago, that he was sitting in the US Capitol and would be "fine for telling the truth".
Toward the end of Vindman's appearance, he was asked by a Democratic congressman to read that line again - and then added why he's not afraid of testifying today.
"Because this is America," he said. "This is the country I have served and defended... and here, right matters."
A smattering of applause broke out from supporters in the hearing-room audience. But Vindman's testimony will only add to the contentious debate among Democrats and Republicans over who is right and exactly what the truth is.
Did Republican witnesses help Democrats more?
Later on Tuesday, the lawmakers heard from former National Security Council official Tim Morrison and US ex-special to Ukraine Kurt Volker. They had been listed as two men Republicans wanted to talk to during the public impeachment hearings.
It turns out they hurt Donald Trump's defence as much as they helped it.
Morrison did say there was nothing illegal or concerning about Donald Trump's 25 July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and no ill motive for moving the rough transcript of that call to a more secure government server.
He also, however, corroborated reports that US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland pressured Ukraine to open investigations that could prove politically helpful to Donald Trump - and that Sondland was in regular contact with the president.
Image copyright Getty Images
Volker said he recalled past instances where the US had held up aid to a foreign nation and saw no evidence of bribery in this case, but he also turned out to be a character witness for Joe Biden.
Not only did he assert that there was nothing untoward about the former vice-president's dealings with Ukraine, but he expressed dismay to learn that when Trump administration officials were calling for investigations into Ukrainian energy company Burisma, they were really looking to damage the Democratic presidential hopeful.
That, and his acknowledgement that military aid may have been held up to increase the pressure on Ukraine, represented a change from Volker's closed-door testimony - given as one of the investigation's first witnesses.
Democrats may suspect that Volker's new assertion is convenient naiveté or intentional obliviousness to avoid culpability, but it means his testimony still was of relatively little use for Republicans.
Now the stage is set for Wednesday's appearance by Sondland - a man whose name came up throughout the day on Tuesday. The ambassador has already had to revise earlier sworn testimony to reflect memories he said were refreshed by other witnesses. He'll be further pressed by both Democrats and Republicans in what could be the most unpredictable appearance of any of the witnesses so far.
Republican Congressman Mark Meadows of North Carolina, one of the president's most ardent defenders, calls Sondland a "wild card". Tomorrow we may have a better idea which side has a winning hand.
Learn more about Trump and impeachment inquiry
Opposing narratives
For Americans watching the impeachment hearings, it often seemed as though the Democrats and Republicans weren't just talking across each other, they're not even existing in the same political universe.
That divergence of realities was on stark display from the start of Tuesday's proceedings, as Democrat Adam Schiff and Republican Devin Nunes gave their opening remarks.
As he had in the previous two days of hearings, Schiff used his time to lay out what he views as the case against Donald Trump. He described the president's alleged "scheme" to pressure the Ukrainian government to open investigations of Democrats that could be politically beneficial to him.
He noted witness testimony of instances of this Ukrainian pressure.
He cited Saturday's closed door deposition by US Ukraine-based diplomat David Holmes, who said he overheard a call during which Trump asked US Ambassador to EU Gordon Sondland about the "investigations". Sondland, Holmes said, would later observe that the president didn't care about Ukraine beyond how the investigations could help him personally.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Both Nunes and Schiff represent the state of California
Nunes, in his five-minute statement, declined to offer a line-by-line defence of the president. Instead, he went on the attack.
He said media coverage of last week's impeachment hearings were biased in favour of the Democrats. He called out CNN, the Guardian, Slate, the Daily Beast, New York magazine and others by name. He said their coverage of Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election was frequently wrong, and the Ukraine story was simply a continuation of a campaign to oust the president.
Democrats, in these hearings, are trying to set out a series of facts that they say point to presidential abuse of power and could constitute an impeachable offence. The Republican strategy, at least at this point, is to encourage Americans that they can't trust the facts - or the mainstream media outlets that are reporting them.
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
JoMnIx0w7QEH4E83
|
|
treasury
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/06/03/surprise-irs-was-warned-about-potentially-hacking-of-sensitive-information-did-nothing-n2007472
|
Negligence: IRS Was Warned About Potential Hacking of Sensitive Taxpayer Information, Did Practically Nothing
|
2015-06-03
|
Katie Pavlich, Bronson Stocking, Matt Vespa, "Cortney OBrien", Julio Rosas
|
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen was in the hot seat on Capitol Hill yesterday over a massive data breach and hacking of highly sensitive taxpayer information , including social security numbers . A number of taxpayers whose information was stolen have also lost their identities .
Information and testimony given by Inspector General Russell George revealed the IRS was given multiple warnings and recommendations about how to prevent an attack or breach . The IRS failed to implement all of the recommendations given . More from Americans For Tax Reform ( bolding is mine ) :
Over the last decade the IRS has failed to implement numerous recommendations that would make taxpayer information more secure . At a Senate Finance Committee hearing today Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration ( TIGTA ) Chief J. Russell George revealed that the IRS failed to implement 44 recommendations that would improve the IRS ’ s ability to protect taxpayer information from hackers . Of these 44 , ten recommendations were from audits over three years old .
If the IRS had implemented these recommendations , taxpayer information would be better protected and last week ’ s hack may have been prevented . As George said during today ’ s hearing , “ It would have been much more difficult had they ( IRS ) implemented all of the recommendations that we made . ”
Since 2007 , the IRS has been warned at least seven times by watchdog groups that it needed to strengthen its protections of taxpayer information .
In a 2014 report , TIGTA warned that if stronger protections are not implemented , “ taxpayers could be exposed to the loss of privacy and to financial loss and damages resulting from identity theft or other financial crimes. ” The report was the latest in a series of warnings about the agency ’ s inability to protect taxpayer information .
A 2013 report found that the IRS had failed to fully implement eight recommendations that would increase security over taxpayer data despite telling TIGTA they had been implemented . A 2011 report found that taxpayer data was vulnerable to hackers and stronger security measures were needed and in 2010 , TIGTA found that the agency had inadequate safeguards to protect taxpayer information from contract workers .
Instead of modernizing its system to protect taxpayer information from hackers , the IRS wasted taxpayer dollars by purchasing Nerf footballs that were never used , the world ’ s largest crossword puzzle , $ 100 lunches , and Thomas the Tank Engine Wristbands .
The IRS also spent millions of tax dollars on the production of a series of Star Trek , Gilligan 's Island and dance videos .
As Senator Tim Scott mentions in the interview above , the IRS receives $ 1 billion each year for IT work .
Meanwhile , despite the breach and likely identity theft of 200,000 taxpayers thanks to the negligence of IRS officials , Americans are still required by law to submit personal information to the tax agency or face penalties , fines and in some cases , prison time .
|
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen was in the hot seat on Capitol Hill yesterday over a massive data breach and hacking of highly sensitive taxpayer information, including social security numbers. A number of taxpayers whose information was stolen have also lost their identities.
Information and testimony given by Inspector General Russell George revealed the IRS was given multiple warnings and recommendations about how to prevent an attack or breach. The IRS failed to implement all of the recommendations given. More from Americans For Tax Reform (bolding is mine):
Over the last decade the IRS has failed to implement numerous recommendations that would make taxpayer information more secure. At a Senate Finance Committee hearing today Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) Chief J. Russell George revealed that the IRS failed to implement 44 recommendations that would improve the IRS’s ability to protect taxpayer information from hackers. Of these 44, ten recommendations were from audits over three years old.
If the IRS had implemented these recommendations, taxpayer information would be better protected and last week’s hack may have been prevented. As George said during today’s hearing, “It would have been much more difficult had they (IRS) implemented all of the recommendations that we made.”
Since 2007, the IRS has been warned at least seven times by watchdog groups that it needed to strengthen its protections of taxpayer information.
In a 2014 report, TIGTA warned that if stronger protections are not implemented, “taxpayers could be exposed to the loss of privacy and to financial loss and damages resulting from identity theft or other financial crimes.” The report was the latest in a series of warnings about the agency’s inability to protect taxpayer information.
A 2013 report found that the IRS had failed to fully implement eight recommendations that would increase security over taxpayer data despite telling TIGTA they had been implemented. A 2011 report found that taxpayer data was vulnerable to hackers and stronger security measures were needed and in 2010, TIGTA found that the agency had inadequate safeguards to protect taxpayer information from contract workers.
Instead of modernizing its system to protect taxpayer information from hackers, the IRS wasted taxpayer dollars by purchasing Nerf footballs that were never used, the world’s largest crossword puzzle, $100 lunches, and Thomas the Tank Engine Wristbands.
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com
The IRS also spent millions of tax dollars on the production of a series of Star Trek, Gilligan's Island and dance videos.
As Senator Tim Scott mentions in the interview above, the IRS receives $1 billion each year for IT work.
Meanwhile, despite the breach and likely identity theft of 200,000 taxpayers thanks to the negligence of IRS officials, Americans are still required by law to submit personal information to the tax agency or face penalties, fines and in some cases, prison time.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
nTWzZwowL9jdvp9v
|
elections
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/romney-vows-to-deliver-country-from-economic-travails.html?_r=1&ref=politics
|
Romney Vows to Deliver Country From Economic Travails
|
2012-08-31
|
Jeff Zeleny
|
With 67 days remaining before Election Day , the presidential race has been essentially locked in place , with each side hoping to win over a small slice of the electorate that is still undecided . The Democratic Party will offer its rebuttal at its own convention next week in North Carolina , with voters being left to judge whether either party advanced its case .
The speech loomed as Mr. Romney ’ s most important since he began openly exploring his presidential aspirations nearly a decade ago . It was an opportunity to present himself to Americans who are just now beginning to tune in to this campaign and to make the case against Mr. Obama , particularly to the people who voted for him .
“ If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama , shouldn ’ t you feel that way now that he ’ s President Obama ? ” Mr. Romney said .
The Republican convention , which had been delayed earlier in the week by Tropical Storm Isaac , ended in a rousing and respectful acclamation for Mr. Romney . While he has often been viewed with suspicion by conservative activists , he is now widely seen in a new light as a man who stands a strong chance of winning back the White House .
In a campaign where foreign policy has often been a side note , Mr. Romney showed that he does not intend to shy away from aggressively challenging Mr. Obama ’ s foreign policy . He said the president had “ abandoned our friends in Poland , ” been duped by Iran and been too weak toward Russia .
“ Every American was relieved the day President Obama gave the order and SEAL Team 6 took out Osama bin Laden , ” Mr. Romney said . “ But on another front , every American is less secure today because he has failed to slow Iran ’ s nuclear threat . ”
But the evening was not entirely serious , with a bizarre element of stagecraft playing out as the actor Clint Eastwood strode into the convention hall to deliver a meandering monologue that criticized the president . He used an empty bar stool sitting on stage as a prop to hold an imaginary conversation with Mr. Obama , which occupied the first 15 minutes of coverage on the broadcast television networks .
He engaged in a series of exchanges , saying at one point , “ What do you want me to tell Mr. Romney ? ” He replied , “ I can ’ t tell him that . He can ’ t do that to himself , ” Mr. Eastwood said . Then he said , “ You ’ re getting as bad as Biden . ”
The audience inside the hall responded with curiosity to the bit of old Hollywood . From her seat on the convention floor , Ann Romney watched with a nervous look on her face .
The dynamics shaping the general election campaign , particularly the challenges facing Mr. Romney , came to life during the convention and in his 39-minute acceptance speech . Improving his standing among female voters is critical to his chances for victory , aides said , and Mr. Romney amplified a steady theme of messages aimed at women .
“ When my mom ran for the Senate , my dad was there for her every step of the way , ” Mr. Romney said , parceling out another piece of his biography . “ I can still hear her saying in her beautiful voice , ‘ Why should women have any less say than men , about the great decisions facing our nation ? ’ ”
A party that has struggled to increase its appeal to female , Hispanic and black voters featured a diverse lineup of speakers throughout the week , concluding with Senator Marco Rubio of Florida , who introduced Mr. Romney on Thursday evening . A favorite of Tea Party activists , Mr. Rubio embraced Mr. Romney as “ a special man to lead us in a special time . ”
Mr. Romney swept into the convention hall to an enthusiastic welcome , ending his long journey across two presidential election cycles to reach this moment . The applause grew louder as he took the stage and formally accepted the nomination at 10:36 p.m .
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 .
“ I accept your nomination for president of the United States , ” Mr. Romney said . “ I do so with humility , deeply moved by the trust you place in me . It ’ s a great honor and it ’ s an even greater responsibility . ”
Throughout the evening , Mr. Romney ’ s life story unspooled before the Republican delegates inside the Tampa Bay Times Forum . Testimonials were intended to reshape perceptions about Mr. Romney that have hardened after a negative television advertising campaign from the president and his Democratic allies . Business owners , longtime friends , Olympic athletes and fellow Mormons offered personal anecdotes to help humanize Mr. Romney .
The stories were intended to help build a fuller picture of Mr. Romney , who has been reluctant to talk about some details of his private life . During his speech , he also talked about his Mormon faith , a subject he rarely raises during the campaign , saying , “ My friends cared more about what sports teams we followed than what church we went to . ”
He beamed as he recalled his childhood in Michigan , where his father was governor and a Republican presidential candidate in 1968 . He struck out on his own , saying : “ If I stayed around Michigan in the same business , I never would know if I got a break because of my dad . ”
The speech was warmly received among Republicans who were interviewed as balloons and confetti slowly fell from the rafters and Mr. Romney was joined on stage by his running mate , Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin , and their families .
|
With 67 days remaining before Election Day, the presidential race has been essentially locked in place, with each side hoping to win over a small slice of the electorate that is still undecided. The Democratic Party will offer its rebuttal at its own convention next week in North Carolina , with voters being left to judge whether either party advanced its case.
The speech loomed as Mr. Romney’s most important since he began openly exploring his presidential aspirations nearly a decade ago. It was an opportunity to present himself to Americans who are just now beginning to tune in to this campaign and to make the case against Mr. Obama, particularly to the people who voted for him.
Photo
“If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama , shouldn’t you feel that way now that he’s President Obama?” Mr. Romney said.
The Republican convention, which had been delayed earlier in the week by Tropical Storm Isaac , ended in a rousing and respectful acclamation for Mr. Romney. While he has often been viewed with suspicion by conservative activists, he is now widely seen in a new light as a man who stands a strong chance of winning back the White House.
In a campaign where foreign policy has often been a side note, Mr. Romney showed that he does not intend to shy away from aggressively challenging Mr. Obama’s foreign policy. He said the president had “abandoned our friends in Poland ,” been duped by Iran and been too weak toward Russia .
“Every American was relieved the day President Obama gave the order and SEAL Team 6 took out Osama bin Laden ,” Mr. Romney said. “But on another front, every American is less secure today because he has failed to slow Iran’s nuclear threat.”
But the evening was not entirely serious, with a bizarre element of stagecraft playing out as the actor Clint Eastwood strode into the convention hall to deliver a meandering monologue that criticized the president. He used an empty bar stool sitting on stage as a prop to hold an imaginary conversation with Mr. Obama, which occupied the first 15 minutes of coverage on the broadcast television networks.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
He engaged in a series of exchanges, saying at one point, “What do you want me to tell Mr. Romney?” He replied, “I can’t tell him that. He can’t do that to himself,” Mr. Eastwood said. Then he said, “You’re getting as bad as Biden.”
The audience inside the hall responded with curiosity to the bit of old Hollywood. From her seat on the convention floor, Ann Romney watched with a nervous look on her face.
The dynamics shaping the general election campaign, particularly the challenges facing Mr. Romney, came to life during the convention and in his 39-minute acceptance speech. Improving his standing among female voters is critical to his chances for victory, aides said, and Mr. Romney amplified a steady theme of messages aimed at women.
Video
“When my mom ran for the Senate, my dad was there for her every step of the way,” Mr. Romney said, parceling out another piece of his biography. “I can still hear her saying in her beautiful voice, ‘Why should women have any less say than men, about the great decisions facing our nation?’ ”
A party that has struggled to increase its appeal to female, Hispanic and black voters featured a diverse lineup of speakers throughout the week, concluding with Senator Marco Rubio of Florida , who introduced Mr. Romney on Thursday evening. A favorite of Tea Party activists, Mr. Rubio embraced Mr. Romney as “a special man to lead us in a special time.”
Mr. Romney swept into the convention hall to an enthusiastic welcome, ending his long journey across two presidential election cycles to reach this moment. The applause grew louder as he took the stage and formally accepted the nomination at 10:36 p.m.
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.
“I accept your nomination for president of the United States ,” Mr. Romney said. “I do so with humility, deeply moved by the trust you place in me. It’s a great honor and it’s an even greater responsibility.”
Throughout the evening, Mr. Romney’s life story unspooled before the Republican delegates inside the Tampa Bay Times Forum. Testimonials were intended to reshape perceptions about Mr. Romney that have hardened after a negative television advertising campaign from the president and his Democratic allies. Business owners, longtime friends, Olympic athletes and fellow Mormons offered personal anecdotes to help humanize Mr. Romney.
The stories were intended to help build a fuller picture of Mr. Romney, who has been reluctant to talk about some details of his private life. During his speech, he also talked about his Mormon faith, a subject he rarely raises during the campaign, saying, “My friends cared more about what sports teams we followed than what church we went to.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
He beamed as he recalled his childhood in Michigan , where his father was governor and a Republican presidential candidate in 1968. He struck out on his own, saying: “If I stayed around Michigan in the same business, I never would know if I got a break because of my dad.”
The speech was warmly received among Republicans who were interviewed as balloons and confetti slowly fell from the rafters and Mr. Romney was joined on stage by his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin , and their families.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
20MGtjP5yuoUUk8C
|
media_bias
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/02/trump-tweets-fake-news-far-more-often-than-build-wall/446746001/
|
Trump tweets about 'fake news' nearly 10 times more often than 'build the wall'
|
2017-07-02
|
President Trump cares more about tearing down the news media than building a wall along the Mexican border — at least according to his Twitter feed .
Trump on Sunday tweeted a mocked-up wrestling video of him body-slamming and beating a character labeled as CNN . `` # FraudNews , '' Trump tagged it . His supporters reveled in the joke while critics maligned him for suggesting violence against the media .
Since his election , Trump has published more than 60 tweets disparaging `` fake news '' — according to a search of the trumptwitterarchive.com database — mostly targeting CNN but also including a range of other media outlets . But since November , Trump has posted fewer than a dozen tweets about the border wall that was the hallmark of his presidential campaign .
Trump occasionally tweeted about the `` dishonest media '' during the campaign , but he did not tweet about `` fake news '' until Dec. 10 , a month after he was elected . `` Reports by @ CNN that I will be working on The Apprentice during my Presidency , even part time , are ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS ! '' he wrote at the time .
Since then he has regularly used his Twitter feed to engage his feud with the media , even as his key policy topics go undiscussed .
He has posted only 11 tweets with the word `` trade '' and three more about NAFTA , the free trade agreement he railed against during the campaign . From March to October 2016 , Trump tweeted 15 times about NAFTA .
With Congress struggling to pass a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act , Trump has posted about 80 tweets referring to `` health care '' or `` Obamacare . '' However , since taking office he has mentioned vets or veterans in only a dozen tweets , about half as many times as he has mentioned NBC .
CNN has gotten 27 specific mentions in Trump tweets ; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has gotten two .
While Trump gets criticism among the press and political pundits , he clearly gets positive feedback on Twitter . The CNN wrestling tweet quickly became one of Trump 's most retweeted posts ever : more than 183,000 retweets by Sunday afternoon and close to 300,000 likes . By contrast , his most retweeted post about veterans , calling on the House to pass a VA accountability bill , got only 25,000 retweets and 105,000 likes .
Given Trump 's long-stated distrust of polling , `` that sort of engagement in the form of likes and retweets from regular Americans is probably the only feedback loop he trusts , '' said Adam Sharp , former head of news and politics for Twitter . `` Why does he do it ? Because he clearly feels it 's working for him . ''
Sharp also notes that part of the reason Trump 's combative tweets generate so many tweets and likes is because the media publicizes them .
Trump escalates attacks on the media with CNN takedown video
`` It is fair to say that the media gives more attention to his media tweets than his policy ones , '' Sharp said . For example , far more attention was given to Trump 's ongoing Twitter spat with Morning Joe co-hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough on Friday than the president 's tweet the same day indicating he would be willing to consider a bill to simply repeal Obamacare if the Senate replacement bill collapses — a potentially dramatic change in policy .
`` All of this is a great distraction from what he is doing or what he is failing to do , '' said Michael Cornfield , associate professor of political management at George Washington University . `` This is all show biz . ''
Cornfield noted that `` the one time he did n't tweet — which was during ( former FBI director James ) Comey 's testimony — he paid for it , because he did not dominate the conversation . ''
Trump stayed silent on Twitter June 8 while Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about his conversations with Trump before he was fired . Cornfield notes that since Trump was not tweeting , the news narrative was consumed with Comey 's allegations that Trump urged him to drop an investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn .
It is worth noting that Trump maintains a much more traditional Twitter presence through the official @ POTUS account , which generally documents achievements and daily events at the White House . But that account also retweeted the CNN wrestling tweet Sunday .
|
Paul Singer
USA TODAY
President Trump cares more about tearing down the news media than building a wall along the Mexican border — at least according to his Twitter feed.
Trump on Sunday tweeted a mocked-up wrestling video of him body-slamming and beating a character labeled as CNN. "#FraudNews," Trump tagged it. His supporters reveled in the joke while critics maligned him for suggesting violence against the media.
Since his election, Trump has published more than 60 tweets disparaging "fake news" — according to a search of the trumptwitterarchive.com database — mostly targeting CNN but also including a range of other media outlets. But since November, Trump has posted fewer than a dozen tweets about the border wall that was the hallmark of his presidential campaign.
Trump occasionally tweeted about the "dishonest media" during the campaign, but he did not tweet about "fake news" until Dec. 10, a month after he was elected. "Reports by @ CNN that I will be working on The Apprentice during my Presidency, even part time, are ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!" he wrote at the time.
Since then he has regularly used his Twitter feed to engage his feud with the media, even as his key policy topics go undiscussed.
He has posted only 11 tweets with the word "trade" and three more about NAFTA, the free trade agreement he railed against during the campaign. From March to October 2016, Trump tweeted 15 times about NAFTA.
With Congress struggling to pass a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, Trump has posted about 80 tweets referring to "health care" or "Obamacare." However, since taking office he has mentioned vets or veterans in only a dozen tweets, about half as many times as he has mentioned NBC.
CNN has gotten 27 specific mentions in Trump tweets; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has gotten two.
While Trump gets criticism among the press and political pundits, he clearly gets positive feedback on Twitter. The CNN wrestling tweet quickly became one of Trump's most retweeted posts ever: more than 183,000 retweets by Sunday afternoon and close to 300,000 likes. By contrast, his most retweeted post about veterans, calling on the House to pass a VA accountability bill, got only 25,000 retweets and 105,000 likes.
Given Trump's long-stated distrust of polling, "that sort of engagement in the form of likes and retweets from regular Americans is probably the only feedback loop he trusts," said Adam Sharp, former head of news and politics for Twitter. "Why does he do it? Because he clearly feels it's working for him."
Sharp also notes that part of the reason Trump's combative tweets generate so many tweets and likes is because the media publicizes them.
Trump escalates attacks on the media with CNN takedown video
"It is fair to say that the media gives more attention to his media tweets than his policy ones," Sharp said. For example, far more attention was given to Trump's ongoing Twitter spat with Morning Joe co-hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough on Friday than the president's tweet the same day indicating he would be willing to consider a bill to simply repeal Obamacare if the Senate replacement bill collapses — a potentially dramatic change in policy.
"All of this is a great distraction from what he is doing or what he is failing to do," said Michael Cornfield, associate professor of political management at George Washington University. "This is all show biz."
Cornfield noted that "the one time he didn't tweet — which was during (former FBI director James) Comey's testimony — he paid for it, because he did not dominate the conversation."
Trump stayed silent on Twitter June 8 while Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about his conversations with Trump before he was fired. Cornfield notes that since Trump was not tweeting, the news narrative was consumed with Comey's allegations that Trump urged him to drop an investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
It is worth noting that Trump maintains a much more traditional Twitter presence through the official @POTUS account, which generally documents achievements and daily events at the White House. But that account also retweeted the CNN wrestling tweet Sunday.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
76dJR7l365wkTuq1
|
|
media_bias
|
Pew Research Center
| 11
|
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/05/almost-seven-in-ten-americans-have-news-fatigue-more-among-republicans/
|
Almost seven-in-ten Americans have news fatigue, more among Republicans
|
2018-06-05
|
Jeffrey Gottfried, Michael Barthel
|
If you feel like there is too much news and you can ’ t keep up , you are not alone . A sizable portion of Americans are feeling overwhelmed by the amount of news there is , though the sentiment is more common on the right side of the political spectrum , according to a ███ survey conducted from Feb. 22 to March 4 , 2018 .
Almost seven-in-ten Americans ( 68 % ) feel worn out by the amount of news there is these days , compared with only three-in-ten who say they like the amount of news they get . The portion expressing feelings of information overload is in line with how Americans felt during the 2016 presidential election , when a majority expressed feelings of exhaustion from election coverage .
While majorities of both Republicans and Democrats express news fatigue , Republicans are feeling it more . Roughly three-quarters ( 77 % ) of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents feel worn out over how much news there is , compared with about six-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents ( 61 % ) . This elevated fatigue among Republicans tracks with them having less enthusiasm than Democrats for the 2018 elections .
Feeling overwhelmed by the news is more common among those who follow the news less closely than among those who are avid consumers . While a majority of those who follow the news most of the time ( 62 % ) are feeling worn out by the news , a substantially higher portion ( 78 % ) of those who less frequently get news say they are fatigued by the amount of it that they see . ( Most Americans – 65 % – say they follow the news most of time , whereas 34 % say they follow only when something important is happening . )
Those less favorable toward the news media are also the most “ worn out. ” Eight-in-ten of those who think national news organizations do “ not too ” or “ not at all well ” in informing the public are feeling this exhaustion . This is somewhat higher than among those who say the news media do “ fairly well ” ( 69 % ) , and much higher than for those who think news organizations do “ very well ” – of whom 48 % say they are worn out by the news and 51 % say they like the amount they see . This relationship between attitudes toward the news media and fatigue holds even after accounting for Americans ’ political party affiliation .
( Overall , 17 % of Americans say national news organizations are doing very well at keeping the public informed of the most important national stories of the day , while 24 % say they do not too or not at all well ; the largest portion , 58 % , say the news media do fairly well . )
Some demographic groups – most notably white Americans – are more likely than others to feel exhausted by the news . Nearly three-quarters ( 73 % ) of white Americans express fatigue with the amount of news , much higher than among both Hispanic ( 55 % ) and black Americans ( 55 % ) . Women are also somewhat more likely than men to feel worn out ( 71 % vs. 64 % , respectively ) . Those ages 65 and older are slightly less likely than those who are younger to express a sense of exhaustion with the news .
|
If you feel like there is too much news and you can’t keep up, you are not alone. A sizable portion of Americans are feeling overwhelmed by the amount of news there is, though the sentiment is more common on the right side of the political spectrum, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted from Feb. 22 to March 4, 2018.
Almost seven-in-ten Americans (68%) feel worn out by the amount of news there is these days, compared with only three-in-ten who say they like the amount of news they get. The portion expressing feelings of information overload is in line with how Americans felt during the 2016 presidential election, when a majority expressed feelings of exhaustion from election coverage.
While majorities of both Republicans and Democrats express news fatigue, Republicans are feeling it more. Roughly three-quarters (77%) of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents feel worn out over how much news there is, compared with about six-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (61%). This elevated fatigue among Republicans tracks with them having less enthusiasm than Democrats for the 2018 elections.
Feeling overwhelmed by the news is more common among those who follow the news less closely than among those who are avid consumers. While a majority of those who follow the news most of the time (62%) are feeling worn out by the news, a substantially higher portion (78%) of those who less frequently get news say they are fatigued by the amount of it that they see. (Most Americans – 65% – say they follow the news most of time, whereas 34% say they follow only when something important is happening.)
Those less favorable toward the news media are also the most “worn out.” Eight-in-ten of those who think national news organizations do “not too” or “not at all well” in informing the public are feeling this exhaustion. This is somewhat higher than among those who say the news media do “fairly well” (69%), and much higher than for those who think news organizations do “very well” – of whom 48% say they are worn out by the news and 51% say they like the amount they see. This relationship between attitudes toward the news media and fatigue holds even after accounting for Americans’ political party affiliation.
(Overall, 17% of Americans say national news organizations are doing very well at keeping the public informed of the most important national stories of the day, while 24% say they do not too or not at all well; the largest portion, 58%, say the news media do fairly well.)
Some demographic groups – most notably white Americans – are more likely than others to feel exhausted by the news. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of white Americans express fatigue with the amount of news, much higher than among both Hispanic (55%) and black Americans (55%). Women are also somewhat more likely than men to feel worn out (71% vs. 64%, respectively). Those ages 65 and older are slightly less likely than those who are younger to express a sense of exhaustion with the news.
Note: The full methodology and topline can be found here (PDF).
|
www.pewresearch.org
| 2center
|
O8VEpSqBeopsu8r3
|
welfare
|
ThinkProgress
| 00
|
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/08/3136631/lepage-welfare/
|
Governor’s Attempt To Find Massive Welfare Fraud Turns Up Next To Nothing
|
2014-01-08
|
On Tuesday , Maine Gov . Paul LePage ( R ) released data on purchases made with state welfare benefits that he claimed exposed abuse , but they only add up to less than a percent of all benefit transactions .
The data show that there were more than 3,000 transactions at bars , sports bars , and strip clubs made with EBT ( electronic benefit transfer ) cards loaded with TANF ( Temporary Assistance for Needy Families , or welfare ) and food stamp benefits between January 1 , 2011 and November 15 , 2013 . The state doesn ’ t track what was actually purchased , and some transactions can be withdrawals from ATMs at those locations . Given that there are about 50,000 of these transactions every month , or nearly 1.8 million in that time frame , as the state ’ s Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS ) spokesman told the Bangor Daily News , they only make up “ about two-tenths of 1 percent of total purchases and ATM withdrawals , ” the paper calculates .
LePage still expressed outrage at this tiny fraction of purchases . “ This information is eye-opening and indicates a larger problem than initially thought , ” he wrote when the data was released . “ These benefits are supposed to help families , children and our most vulnerable Mainers . Instead , we have discovered welfare benefits are paying for alcohol , cigarettes and other things that hardworking taxpayers should not be footing the bill for. ” When the Bangor Daily News asked his spokeswoman about the small number of transactions , she responded , “ Any amount of abuse in the system that takes away from the truly needy needs to be dealt with , ” adding , “ We ’ re not uncovering anything new . There are always going to be bad actors out there . We ’ re simply saying , ‘ We ’ ve got an eye on you . ’ ”
His spokeswoman also said that he will sponsor a bill to address issues with welfare benefits during this year ’ s session , including the fact that the state doesn ’ t track what recipients buy .
If LePage is seeking to paint welfare recipients as wasteful spenders who blow their money on alcohol and cigarettes , the data are not on his side . Nationally , those who receive public benefits such as welfare cash assistance , food stamps , housing assistance , Medicaid , and others spend a bigger portion of their budgets on basics like food , housing , and transportation than those who aren ’ t enrolled in these programs . They also spend less on eating out and entertainment . Overall , families who rely on government programs spend less than half of what families who don ’ t rely on them spend .
LePage has made other controversial statements and decisions when it comes to the poor or less fortunate residents of his state . He claimed that 47 percent of Mainers don ’ t work , despite the fact that 65 percent are working or actively seeking a job while the remaining percentage is mostly made up of retirees , the disabled , students , and homemakers . He exhorted all able-bodied residents to “ get off the couch and get yourself a job ” in 2012 despite high unemployment rates and few job openings . After he pushed for a five-year cap on welfare benefits , more than 1,500 families with an estimated 2,700 children lost the assistance . Even his plan to simply relocate the state ’ s DHHS office was controversial , as he wants to move it from downtown Portland to a location in South Portland that is difficult to reach and could restrict the poor ’ s access to social services .
|
On Tuesday, Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) released data on purchases made with state welfare benefits that he claimed exposed abuse, but they only add up to less than a percent of all benefit transactions.
The data show that there were more than 3,000 transactions at bars, sports bars, and strip clubs made with EBT (electronic benefit transfer) cards loaded with TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or welfare) and food stamp benefits between January 1, 2011 and November 15, 2013. The state doesn’t track what was actually purchased, and some transactions can be withdrawals from ATMs at those locations. Given that there are about 50,000 of these transactions every month, or nearly 1.8 million in that time frame, as the state’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) spokesman told the Bangor Daily News, they only make up “about two-tenths of 1 percent of total purchases and ATM withdrawals,” the paper calculates.
LePage still expressed outrage at this tiny fraction of purchases. “This information is eye-opening and indicates a larger problem than initially thought,” he wrote when the data was released. “These benefits are supposed to help families, children and our most vulnerable Mainers. Instead, we have discovered welfare benefits are paying for alcohol, cigarettes and other things that hardworking taxpayers should not be footing the bill for.” When the Bangor Daily News asked his spokeswoman about the small number of transactions, she responded, “Any amount of abuse in the system that takes away from the truly needy needs to be dealt with,” adding, “We’re not uncovering anything new. There are always going to be bad actors out there. We’re simply saying, ‘We’ve got an eye on you.’”
His spokeswoman also said that he will sponsor a bill to address issues with welfare benefits during this year’s session, including the fact that the state doesn’t track what recipients buy.
Advertisement
If LePage is seeking to paint welfare recipients as wasteful spenders who blow their money on alcohol and cigarettes, the data are not on his side. Nationally, those who receive public benefits such as welfare cash assistance, food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, and others spend a bigger portion of their budgets on basics like food, housing, and transportation than those who aren’t enrolled in these programs. They also spend less on eating out and entertainment. Overall, families who rely on government programs spend less than half of what families who don’t rely on them spend.
LePage has made other controversial statements and decisions when it comes to the poor or less fortunate residents of his state. He claimed that 47 percent of Mainers don’t work, despite the fact that 65 percent are working or actively seeking a job while the remaining percentage is mostly made up of retirees, the disabled, students, and homemakers. He exhorted all able-bodied residents to “get off the couch and get yourself a job” in 2012 despite high unemployment rates and few job openings. After he pushed for a five-year cap on welfare benefits, more than 1,500 families with an estimated 2,700 children lost the assistance. Even his plan to simply relocate the state’s DHHS office was controversial, as he wants to move it from downtown Portland to a location in South Portland that is difficult to reach and could restrict the poor’s access to social services.
|
www.thinkprogress.org
| 0left
|
En0rFNvtxGWtG91q
|
|
justice_department
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/nsa-gchq-smartphone-app-angry-birds-personal-data
|
NSA and GCHQ target 'leaky' phone apps like Angry Birds to scoop user data
|
2014-01-27
|
James Ball
|
• US and UK spy agencies piggyback on commercial data • Details can include age , location and sexual orientation • Documents also reveal targeted tools against individual phones
The National Security Agency and its UK counterpart GCHQ have been developing capabilities to take advantage of `` leaky '' smartphone apps , such as the wildly popular Angry Birds game , that transmit users ' private information across the internet , according to top secret documents .
The data pouring onto communication networks from the new generation of iPhone and Android apps ranges from phone model and screen size to personal details such as age , gender and location . Some apps , the documents state , can share users ' most sensitive information such as sexual orientation – and one app recorded in the material even sends specific sexual preferences such as whether or not the user may be a swinger .
Many smartphone owners will be unaware of the full extent this information is being shared across the internet , and even the most sophisticated would be unlikely to realise that all of it is available for the spy agencies to collect .
Dozens of classified documents , provided to ███ by whistleblower Edward Snowden and reported in partnership with the New York Times and ProPublica , detail the NSA and GCHQ efforts to piggyback on this commercial data collection for their own purposes .
Scooping up information the apps are sending about their users allows the agencies to collect large quantities of mobile phone data from their existing mass surveillance tools – such as cable taps , or from international mobile networks – rather than solely from hacking into individual mobile handsets .
Exploiting phone information and location is a high-priority effort for the intelligence agencies , as terrorists and other intelligence targets make substantial use of phones in planning and carrying out their activities , for example by using phones as triggering devices in conflict zones . The NSA has cumulatively spent more than $ 1bn in its phone targeting efforts .
The disclosures also reveal how much the shift towards smartphone browsing could benefit spy agencies ' collection efforts .
One slide from a May 2010 NSA presentation on getting data from smartphones – breathlessly titled `` Golden Nugget ! '' – sets out the agency 's `` perfect scenario '' : `` Target uploading photo to a social media site taken with a mobile device . What can we get ? ''
The question is answered in the notes to the slide : from that event alone , the agency said it could obtain a `` possible image '' , email selector , phone , buddy lists , and `` a host of other social working data as well as location '' .
In practice , most major social media sites , such as Facebook and Twitter , strip photos of identifying location metadata ( known as EXIF data ) before publication . However , depending on when this is done during upload , such data may still , briefly , be available for collection by the agencies as it travels across the networks .
Depending on what profile information a user had supplied , the documents suggested , the agency would be able to collect almost every key detail of a user 's life : including home country , current location ( through geolocation ) , age , gender , zip code , marital status – options included `` single '' , `` married '' , `` divorced '' , `` swinger '' and more – income , ethnicity , sexual orientation , education level , and number of children .
The agencies also made use of their mobile interception capabilities to collect location information in bulk , from Google and other mapping apps . One basic effort by GCHQ and the NSA was to build a database geolocating every mobile phone mast in the world – meaning that just by taking tower ID from a handset , location information could be gleaned .
A more sophisticated effort , though , relied on intercepting Google Maps queries made on smartphones , and using them to collect large volumes of location information .
So successful was this effort that one 2008 document noted that `` [ i ] t effectively means that anyone using Google Maps on a smartphone is working in support of a GCHQ system . ''
The information generated by each app is chosen by its developers , or by the company that delivers an app 's adverts . The documents do not detail whether the agencies actually collect the potentially sensitive details some apps are capable of storing or transmitting , but any such information would likely qualify as content , rather than metadata .
Data collected from smartphone apps is subject to the same laws and minimisation procedures as all other NSA activity – procedures that the US president , Barack Obama , suggested may be subject to reform in a speech 10 days ago . But the president focused largely on the NSA 's collection of the metadata from US phone calls and made no mention in his address of the large amounts of data the agency collects from smartphone apps .
The latest disclosures could also add to mounting public concern about how the technology sector collects and uses information , especially for those outside the US , who enjoy fewer privacy protections than Americans . A January poll for the Washington Post showed 69 % of US adults were already concerned about how tech companies such as Google used and stored their information .
The documents do not make it clear how much of the information that can be taken from apps is routinely collected , stored or searched , nor how many users may be affected . The NSA says it does not target Americans and its capabilities are deployed only against `` valid foreign intelligence targets '' .
The documents do set out in great detail exactly how much information can be collected from widely popular apps . One document held on GCHQ 's internal Wikipedia-style guide for staff details what can be collected from different apps . Though it uses Android apps for most of its examples , it suggests much of the same data could be taken from equivalent apps on iPhone or other platforms .
The GCHQ documents set out examples of what information can be extracted from different ad platforms , using perhaps the most popular mobile phone game of all time , Angry Birds – which has reportedly been downloaded more than 1.7bn times – as a case study .
From some app platforms , relatively limited , but identifying , information such as exact handset model , the unique ID of the handset , software version , and similar details are all that are transmitted .
Other apps choose to transmit much more data , meaning the agency could potentially net far more . One mobile ad platform , Millennial Media , appeared to offer particularly rich information . Millennial Media 's website states it has partnered with Rovio on a special edition of Angry Birds ; with Farmville maker Zynga ; with Call of Duty developer Activision , and many other major franchises .
Rovio , the maker of Angry Birds , said it had no knowledge of any NSA or GCHQ programs looking to extract data from its apps users .
`` Rovio does n't have any previous knowledge of this matter , and have not been aware of such activity in 3rd party advertising networks , '' said Saara Bergström , Rovio 's VP of marketing and communications . `` Nor do we have any involvement with the organizations you mentioned [ NSA and GCHQ ] . ''
Millennial Media did not respond to a request for comment .
In December , the Washington Post reported on how the NSA could make use of advertising tracking files generated through normal internet browsing – known as cookies – from Google and others to get information on potential targets .
However , the richer personal data available to many apps , coupled with real-time geolocation , and the uniquely identifying handset information many apps transmit give the agencies a far richer data source than conventional web-tracking cookies .
Almost every major website uses cookies to serve targeted advertising and content , as well as streamline the experience for the user , for example by managing logins . One GCHQ document from 2010 notes that cookie data – which generally qualifies as metadata – has become just as important to the spies . In fact , the agencies were sweeping it up in such high volumes that their were struggling to store it .
`` They are gathered in bulk , and are currently our single largest type of events , '' the document stated .
The ability to obtain targeted intelligence by hacking individual handsets has been well documented , both through several years of hacker conferences and previous NSA disclosures in Der Spiegel , and both the NSA and GCHQ have extensive tools ready to deploy against iPhone , Android and other phone platforms .
GCHQ 's targeted tools against individual smartphones are named after characters in the TV series The Smurfs . An ability to make the phone 's microphone 'hot ' , to listen in to conversations , is named `` Nosey Smurf '' . High-precision geolocation is called `` Tracker Smurf '' , power management – an ability to stealthily activate an a phone that is apparently turned off – is `` Dreamy Smurf '' , while the spyware 's self-hiding capabilities are codenamed `` Paranoid Smurf '' .
Those capability names are set out in a much broader 2010 presentation that sheds light on spy agencies ' aspirations for mobile phone interception , and that less-documented mass-collection abilities .
The cover sheet of the document sets out the team 's aspirations :
Another slide details weak spots in where data flows from mobile phone network providers to the wider internet , where the agency attempts to intercept communications . These are locations either within a particular network , or international roaming exchanges ( known as GRXs ) , where data from travellers roaming outside their home country is routed .
These are particularly useful to the agency as data is often only weakly encrypted on such networks , and includes extra information such as handset ID or mobile number – much stronger target identifiers than usual IP addresses or similar information left behind when PCs and laptops browse the internet .
The NSA said its phone interception techniques are only used against valid targets , and are subject to stringent legal safeguards .
`` The communications of people who are not valid foreign intelligence targets are not of interest to the National Security Agency , '' said a spokeswoman in a statement .
`` Any implication that NSA 's foreign intelligence collection is focused on the smartphone or social media communications of everyday Americans is not true . Moreover , NSA does not profile everyday Americans as it carries out its foreign intelligence mission . We collect only those communications that we are authorized by law to collect for valid foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes – regardless of the technical means used by the targets .
`` Because some data of US persons may at times be incidentally collected in NSA 's lawful foreign intelligence mission , privacy protections for US persons exist across the entire process concerning the use , handling , retention , and dissemination of data . In addition , NSA actively works to remove extraneous data , to include that of innocent foreign citizens , as early as possible in the process .
`` Continuous and selective publication of specific techniques and tools lawfully used by NSA to pursue legitimate foreign intelligence targets is detrimental to the security of the United States and our allies – and places at risk those we are sworn to protect . ''
The NSA declined to respond to a series of queries on how routinely capabilities against apps were deployed , or on the specific minimisation procedures used to prevent US citizens ' information being stored through such measures .
GCHQ declined to comment on any of its specific programs , but stressed all of its activities were proportional and complied with UK law .
`` It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters , '' said a spokesman .
`` Furthermore , all of GCHQ 's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework that ensures that our activities are authorised , necessary and proportionate , and that there is rigorous oversight , including from the Secretary of State , the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee . All our operational processes rigorously support this position . ''
• A separate disclosure on Wednesday , published by Glenn Greenwald and NBC News , gave examples of how GCHQ was making use of its cable-tapping capabilities to monitor YouTube and social media traffic in real-time .
GCHQ ’ s cable-tapping and internet buffering capabilities , codenamed Tempora , were disclosed by ███ in June , but the new documents published by NBC from a GCHQ presentation titled “ Psychology : A New Kind of SIGDEV '' set out a program codenamed Squeaky Dolphin which gave the British spies “ broad real-time monitoring ” of “ YouTube Video Views ” , “ URLs ‘ Liked ’ on Facebook ” and “ Blogspot/Blogger Visits ” .
A further slide noted that “ passive ” – a term for large-scale surveillance through cable intercepts – give the agency “ scalability ” .
The means of interception mean GCHQ and NSA could obtain data without any knowledge or co-operation from the technology companies . Spokespeople for the NSA and GCHQ told NBC all programs were carried out in accordance with US and UK law .
• This article was amended on 28 January 2014 . It referred to martial status , instead of marital status . This has been corrected .
|
• US and UK spy agencies piggyback on commercial data • Details can include age, location and sexual orientation • Documents also reveal targeted tools against individual phones
The National Security Agency and its UK counterpart GCHQ have been developing capabilities to take advantage of "leaky" smartphone apps, such as the wildly popular Angry Birds game, that transmit users' private information across the internet, according to top secret documents.
The data pouring onto communication networks from the new generation of iPhone and Android apps ranges from phone model and screen size to personal details such as age, gender and location. Some apps, the documents state, can share users' most sensitive information such as sexual orientation – and one app recorded in the material even sends specific sexual preferences such as whether or not the user may be a swinger.
Many smartphone owners will be unaware of the full extent this information is being shared across the internet, and even the most sophisticated would be unlikely to realise that all of it is available for the spy agencies to collect.
Dozens of classified documents, provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden and reported in partnership with the New York Times and ProPublica, detail the NSA and GCHQ efforts to piggyback on this commercial data collection for their own purposes.
Scooping up information the apps are sending about their users allows the agencies to collect large quantities of mobile phone data from their existing mass surveillance tools – such as cable taps, or from international mobile networks – rather than solely from hacking into individual mobile handsets.
Exploiting phone information and location is a high-priority effort for the intelligence agencies, as terrorists and other intelligence targets make substantial use of phones in planning and carrying out their activities, for example by using phones as triggering devices in conflict zones. The NSA has cumulatively spent more than $1bn in its phone targeting efforts.
The disclosures also reveal how much the shift towards smartphone browsing could benefit spy agencies' collection efforts.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest A May 2010 NSA slide on the agency's 'perfect scenario' for obtaining data from mobile apps. Photograph: Guardian
One slide from a May 2010 NSA presentation on getting data from smartphones – breathlessly titled "Golden Nugget!" – sets out the agency's "perfect scenario": "Target uploading photo to a social media site taken with a mobile device. What can we get?"
The question is answered in the notes to the slide: from that event alone, the agency said it could obtain a "possible image", email selector, phone, buddy lists, and "a host of other social working data as well as location".
In practice, most major social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, strip photos of identifying location metadata (known as EXIF data) before publication. However, depending on when this is done during upload, such data may still, briefly, be available for collection by the agencies as it travels across the networks.
Depending on what profile information a user had supplied, the documents suggested, the agency would be able to collect almost every key detail of a user's life: including home country, current location (through geolocation), age, gender, zip code, marital status – options included "single", "married", "divorced", "swinger" and more – income, ethnicity, sexual orientation, education level, and number of children.
The agencies also made use of their mobile interception capabilities to collect location information in bulk, from Google and other mapping apps. One basic effort by GCHQ and the NSA was to build a database geolocating every mobile phone mast in the world – meaning that just by taking tower ID from a handset, location information could be gleaned.
A more sophisticated effort, though, relied on intercepting Google Maps queries made on smartphones, and using them to collect large volumes of location information.
So successful was this effort that one 2008 document noted that "[i]t effectively means that anyone using Google Maps on a smartphone is working in support of a GCHQ system."
The information generated by each app is chosen by its developers, or by the company that delivers an app's adverts. The documents do not detail whether the agencies actually collect the potentially sensitive details some apps are capable of storing or transmitting, but any such information would likely qualify as content, rather than metadata.
Data collected from smartphone apps is subject to the same laws and minimisation procedures as all other NSA activity – procedures that the US president, Barack Obama, suggested may be subject to reform in a speech 10 days ago. But the president focused largely on the NSA's collection of the metadata from US phone calls and made no mention in his address of the large amounts of data the agency collects from smartphone apps.
The latest disclosures could also add to mounting public concern about how the technology sector collects and uses information, especially for those outside the US, who enjoy fewer privacy protections than Americans. A January poll for the Washington Post showed 69% of US adults were already concerned about how tech companies such as Google used and stored their information.
The documents do not make it clear how much of the information that can be taken from apps is routinely collected, stored or searched, nor how many users may be affected. The NSA says it does not target Americans and its capabilities are deployed only against "valid foreign intelligence targets".
The documents do set out in great detail exactly how much information can be collected from widely popular apps. One document held on GCHQ's internal Wikipedia-style guide for staff details what can be collected from different apps. Though it uses Android apps for most of its examples, it suggests much of the same data could be taken from equivalent apps on iPhone or other platforms.
The GCHQ documents set out examples of what information can be extracted from different ad platforms, using perhaps the most popular mobile phone game of all time, Angry Birds – which has reportedly been downloaded more than 1.7bn times – as a case study.
From some app platforms, relatively limited, but identifying, information such as exact handset model, the unique ID of the handset, software version, and similar details are all that are transmitted.
Other apps choose to transmit much more data, meaning the agency could potentially net far more. One mobile ad platform, Millennial Media, appeared to offer particularly rich information. Millennial Media's website states it has partnered with Rovio on a special edition of Angry Birds; with Farmville maker Zynga; with Call of Duty developer Activision, and many other major franchises.
Rovio, the maker of Angry Birds, said it had no knowledge of any NSA or GCHQ programs looking to extract data from its apps users.
"Rovio doesn't have any previous knowledge of this matter, and have not been aware of such activity in 3rd party advertising networks," said Saara Bergström, Rovio's VP of marketing and communications. "Nor do we have any involvement with the organizations you mentioned [NSA and GCHQ]."
Millennial Media did not respond to a request for comment.
In December, the Washington Post reported on how the NSA could make use of advertising tracking files generated through normal internet browsing – known as cookies – from Google and others to get information on potential targets.
However, the richer personal data available to many apps, coupled with real-time geolocation, and the uniquely identifying handset information many apps transmit give the agencies a far richer data source than conventional web-tracking cookies.
Almost every major website uses cookies to serve targeted advertising and content, as well as streamline the experience for the user, for example by managing logins. One GCHQ document from 2010 notes that cookie data – which generally qualifies as metadata – has become just as important to the spies. In fact, the agencies were sweeping it up in such high volumes that their were struggling to store it.
"They are gathered in bulk, and are currently our single largest type of events," the document stated.
The ability to obtain targeted intelligence by hacking individual handsets has been well documented, both through several years of hacker conferences and previous NSA disclosures in Der Spiegel, and both the NSA and GCHQ have extensive tools ready to deploy against iPhone, Android and other phone platforms.
GCHQ's targeted tools against individual smartphones are named after characters in the TV series The Smurfs. An ability to make the phone's microphone 'hot', to listen in to conversations, is named "Nosey Smurf". High-precision geolocation is called "Tracker Smurf", power management – an ability to stealthily activate an a phone that is apparently turned off – is "Dreamy Smurf", while the spyware's self-hiding capabilities are codenamed "Paranoid Smurf".
Those capability names are set out in a much broader 2010 presentation that sheds light on spy agencies' aspirations for mobile phone interception, and that less-documented mass-collection abilities.
The cover sheet of the document sets out the team's aspirations:
Facebook Twitter Pinterest The cover slide for a May 2010 GCHQ presentation on mobile phone data interception. Photograph: Guardian
Another slide details weak spots in where data flows from mobile phone network providers to the wider internet, where the agency attempts to intercept communications. These are locations either within a particular network, or international roaming exchanges (known as GRXs), where data from travellers roaming outside their home country is routed.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest While GCHQ uses Android apps for most of its examples, it suggests much of the same data could be taken from iPhone apps. Photograph: Guardian
Facebook Twitter Pinterest GCHQ's targeted tools against individual smartphones are named after characters in the TV series The Smurfs. Photograph: Guardian
These are particularly useful to the agency as data is often only weakly encrypted on such networks, and includes extra information such as handset ID or mobile number – much stronger target identifiers than usual IP addresses or similar information left behind when PCs and laptops browse the internet.
The NSA said its phone interception techniques are only used against valid targets, and are subject to stringent legal safeguards.
"The communications of people who are not valid foreign intelligence targets are not of interest to the National Security Agency," said a spokeswoman in a statement.
"Any implication that NSA's foreign intelligence collection is focused on the smartphone or social media communications of everyday Americans is not true. Moreover, NSA does not profile everyday Americans as it carries out its foreign intelligence mission. We collect only those communications that we are authorized by law to collect for valid foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes – regardless of the technical means used by the targets.
"Because some data of US persons may at times be incidentally collected in NSA's lawful foreign intelligence mission, privacy protections for US persons exist across the entire process concerning the use, handling, retention, and dissemination of data. In addition, NSA actively works to remove extraneous data, to include that of innocent foreign citizens, as early as possible in the process.
"Continuous and selective publication of specific techniques and tools lawfully used by NSA to pursue legitimate foreign intelligence targets is detrimental to the security of the United States and our allies – and places at risk those we are sworn to protect."
The NSA declined to respond to a series of queries on how routinely capabilities against apps were deployed, or on the specific minimisation procedures used to prevent US citizens' information being stored through such measures.
GCHQ declined to comment on any of its specific programs, but stressed all of its activities were proportional and complied with UK law.
"It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters," said a spokesman.
"Furthermore, all of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework that ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position."
• A separate disclosure on Wednesday, published by Glenn Greenwald and NBC News, gave examples of how GCHQ was making use of its cable-tapping capabilities to monitor YouTube and social media traffic in real-time.
GCHQ’s cable-tapping and internet buffering capabilities , codenamed Tempora, were disclosed by the Guardian in June, but the new documents published by NBC from a GCHQ presentation titled “Psychology: A New Kind of SIGDEV" set out a program codenamed Squeaky Dolphin which gave the British spies “broad real-time monitoring” of “YouTube Video Views”, “URLs ‘Liked’ on Facebook” and “Blogspot/Blogger Visits”.
A further slide noted that “passive” – a term for large-scale surveillance through cable intercepts – give the agency “scalability”.
The means of interception mean GCHQ and NSA could obtain data without any knowledge or co-operation from the technology companies. Spokespeople for the NSA and GCHQ told NBC all programs were carried out in accordance with US and UK law.
• This article was amended on 28 January 2014. It referred to martial status, instead of marital status. This has been corrected.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
A3OlwGHq8Jf2MUfX
|
healthcare
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/politics/house-gop-sue-the-president-over-obamacare/index.html?hpt=po_c1
|
Boehner: House GOP files Obamacare suit
|
2014-11-21
|
Deirdre Walsh, Dana Bash
|
Story highlights Boehner announced Friday his plans to sue the President over his health care law
The news came right after Boehner criticized President Barack Obama 's immigration plans
House Speaker John Boehner said Friday he has sued the Obama Administration in federal court over its decisions to make changes to the President 's health care law , which congressional Republicans argue were unconstitutional .
The move was expected for months -- the GOP-controlled House of Representatives voted to approve the lawsuit in July . But Boehner had trouble retaining a law firm that would take the case because of the political furor over the controversial health care law .
`` Time after time , the President has chosen to ignore the will of the American people and re-write federal law on his own without a vote of Congress . That 's not the way our system of government was designed to work , '' Boehner said in statement on Friday .
He added , `` if this President can get away with making his own laws , future presidents will have the ability to as well . The House has an obligation to stand up for the Constitution , and that is exactly why we are pursuing this course of action . ''
News of the lawsuit came just minutes after Boehner held a press conference on Friday to respond to the President 's plan to circumvent Congress in order to make sweeping changes to the nation 's immigration system by executive order .
JUST WATCHED Frenemies : Pres . Obama & Speaker Boehner Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Frenemies : Pres . Obama & Speaker Boehner 01:23
JUST WATCHED Boehner responds to immigration order Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Boehner responds to immigration order 04:13
The one-two punch from Boehner marks a new era of tension between Republicans who will officially take over Congress in January , and the President who has signaled that despite his party 's losses in the midterms , he plans to proceed with his agenda without GOP cooperation .
After two Washington firms pulled out of commitments to represent the House in recent months , Boehner hired George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley earlier this week . Turley is an expert on constitutional law and has appeared on multiple television networks as a legal analyst .
Boehner and other top congressional Republican leaders are also contemplating a filing a separate lawsuit challenging the president 's authority to take executive action to give 5 million immigrants temporary status .
The Obamacare complaint cites two specific actions by the Obama Administration regarding the implementation of the health care law . The first zeroes in on the decision to delay for one year the requirement that employers with over 50 employees provide health care coverage or pay penalties . The second maintains it was illegal for the Treasury Department to transfer of billions of dollars that Congress has not approved to insurance companies to share the costs of providing new health plans .
The case , filed in U.S. District court for the District of Columbia , names both the Secretaries of the Health and Human Services and the Treasury Departments , but not the President personally .
House Republicans agreed that Obamacare 's so-called `` employer mandate '' should be postponed . The House passed a bill last summer to do so , but GOP members maintain that the president 's decision to act unilaterally on the delay circumvented Congress ' role to pass laws .
Under the Affordable Care Act insurance companies who provide health care coverage to new customers are eligible for receive money from a government cost-sharing program to offer discounted deductibles and co-payments . But Congress never approved any new funds for this purpose , and the suit says that an estimated $ 3 billion will be paid out by the Treasury Department in 2014 is an illegal action . If Treasury continues to pay out money for this cost-sharing program a total of $ 178 billion could be paid to insurance companies over the next 10 years . The Republican lawsuit argues this ignores Congress ' power of the purse under the Constitution .
The White House dismissed the lawsuit in a statement shortly after its announcement .
`` Instead of passing legislation to help expand the middle class and grow the economy , Speaker Boehner and House Republicans are spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars pursuing a lawsuit that is without any sound legal basis , '' said White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine .
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called the case `` meritless '' on Friday .
`` The fact is , this lawsuit is a bald-faced attempt to achieve what Republicans have been unable to achieve through the political process . The legislative branch can not sue simply because they disagree with the way a law passed by a different Congress has been implemented . It is clear , as one leading legal scholar put it , that this lawsuit is 'an embarrassing loser , ' '' Pelosi said in a written statement .
Some constitutional experts question whether the court will actually move forward with the case from House Republicans , and point out that it could be difficult to demonstrate that the Congress was damaged as an institution by the Administration 's actions .
The U.S. Supreme Court already announced this month that it was reviewing a separate legal challenge to Obamacare -- one focused on tax credits for those buying health care coverage on the federal insurance exchange .
On immigration , Boehner said that Congress `` will not stand idle as the President undermines the rule of law , `` but gave no specifics on how congressional Republicans would respond to the President 's executive action .
Boehner told reporters that by moving ahead with unilateral action , the president chose to `` deliberately sabotage any chance of enacting bipartisan reform that he claims to seek . ''
In a less than five minute press conference on Capitol Hill , the Speaker said he told the President on Thursday `` he 's damaging the presidency itself . ''
Pressed if congressional Republicans would try to block the president 's executive actions by moving legislation to strip funding from federal agencies , Boehner sidestepped the question and instead said he was reviewing various actions with his members .
Due to deep divisions inside the House GOP conference there is no consensus yet on how to try to block the president 's plan .
Many conservatives want to attach a provision to a must pass spending bill to strip funding for federal agencies to carry out the president 's plan . But the chairman of the spending panel argues that is impossible because the customs agency is self-funded through fees and does n't need congressional appropriations . And many Republicans on Capitol Hill worry another fight on a spending bill will lead to another government shutdown . Others are pushing to sue the president , or vote on censuring him .
The clock is ticking for Boehner -- government agencies run out of money on Dec. 11 .
|
Story highlights Boehner announced Friday his plans to sue the President over his health care law
The news came right after Boehner criticized President Barack Obama's immigration plans
House Speaker John Boehner said Friday he has sued the Obama Administration in federal court over its decisions to make changes to the President's health care law, which congressional Republicans argue were unconstitutional.
The move was expected for months -- the GOP-controlled House of Representatives voted to approve the lawsuit in July. But Boehner had trouble retaining a law firm that would take the case because of the political furor over the controversial health care law.
"Time after time, the President has chosen to ignore the will of the American people and re-write federal law on his own without a vote of Congress. That's not the way our system of government was designed to work," Boehner said in statement on Friday.
He added, "if this President can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well. The House has an obligation to stand up for the Constitution, and that is exactly why we are pursuing this course of action."
News of the lawsuit came just minutes after Boehner held a press conference on Friday to respond to the President's plan to circumvent Congress in order to make sweeping changes to the nation's immigration system by executive order.
JUST WATCHED Frenemies: Pres. Obama & Speaker Boehner Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Frenemies: Pres. Obama & Speaker Boehner 01:23
JUST WATCHED Boehner responds to immigration order Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Boehner responds to immigration order 04:13
The one-two punch from Boehner marks a new era of tension between Republicans who will officially take over Congress in January, and the President who has signaled that despite his party's losses in the midterms, he plans to proceed with his agenda without GOP cooperation.
After two Washington firms pulled out of commitments to represent the House in recent months, Boehner hired George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley earlier this week. Turley is an expert on constitutional law and has appeared on multiple television networks as a legal analyst.
Boehner and other top congressional Republican leaders are also contemplating a filing a separate lawsuit challenging the president's authority to take executive action to give 5 million immigrants temporary status.
The Obamacare complaint cites two specific actions by the Obama Administration regarding the implementation of the health care law. The first zeroes in on the decision to delay for one year the requirement that employers with over 50 employees provide health care coverage or pay penalties. The second maintains it was illegal for the Treasury Department to transfer of billions of dollars that Congress has not approved to insurance companies to share the costs of providing new health plans.
The case, filed in U.S. District court for the District of Columbia, names both the Secretaries of the Health and Human Services and the Treasury Departments, but not the President personally.
House Republicans agreed that Obamacare's so-called "employer mandate" should be postponed. The House passed a bill last summer to do so, but GOP members maintain that the president's decision to act unilaterally on the delay circumvented Congress' role to pass laws.
Under the Affordable Care Act insurance companies who provide health care coverage to new customers are eligible for receive money from a government cost-sharing program to offer discounted deductibles and co-payments. But Congress never approved any new funds for this purpose, and the suit says that an estimated $3 billion will be paid out by the Treasury Department in 2014 is an illegal action. If Treasury continues to pay out money for this cost-sharing program a total of $178 billion could be paid to insurance companies over the next 10 years. The Republican lawsuit argues this ignores Congress' power of the purse under the Constitution.
The White House dismissed the lawsuit in a statement shortly after its announcement.
"Instead of passing legislation to help expand the middle class and grow the economy, Speaker Boehner and House Republicans are spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars pursuing a lawsuit that is without any sound legal basis," said White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called the case "meritless" on Friday.
"The fact is, this lawsuit is a bald-faced attempt to achieve what Republicans have been unable to achieve through the political process. The legislative branch cannot sue simply because they disagree with the way a law passed by a different Congress has been implemented. It is clear, as one leading legal scholar put it, that this lawsuit is 'an embarrassing loser,'" Pelosi said in a written statement .
Some constitutional experts question whether the court will actually move forward with the case from House Republicans, and point out that it could be difficult to demonstrate that the Congress was damaged as an institution by the Administration's actions.
The U.S. Supreme Court already announced this month that it was reviewing a separate legal challenge to Obamacare -- one focused on tax credits for those buying health care coverage on the federal insurance exchange.
On immigration, Boehner said that Congress "will not stand idle as the President undermines the rule of law, " but gave no specifics on how congressional Republicans would respond to the President's executive action.
Boehner told reporters that by moving ahead with unilateral action, the president chose to "deliberately sabotage any chance of enacting bipartisan reform that he claims to seek."
In a less than five minute press conference on Capitol Hill, the Speaker said he told the President on Thursday "he's damaging the presidency itself."
Pressed if congressional Republicans would try to block the president's executive actions by moving legislation to strip funding from federal agencies, Boehner sidestepped the question and instead said he was reviewing various actions with his members.
"The House will in fact act," the Speaker promised.
Due to deep divisions inside the House GOP conference there is no consensus yet on how to try to block the president's plan.
Many conservatives want to attach a provision to a must pass spending bill to strip funding for federal agencies to carry out the president's plan. But the chairman of the spending panel argues that is impossible because the customs agency is self-funded through fees and doesn't need congressional appropriations. And many Republicans on Capitol Hill worry another fight on a spending bill will lead to another government shutdown. Others are pushing to sue the president, or vote on censuring him.
The clock is ticking for Boehner -- government agencies run out of money on Dec. 11.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
a68faOzwzKYbfNpf
|
healthcare
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/17/politics/health-care-issues/index.html
|
Health care's big four issues: What the justices are tackling
|
2012-06-17
|
Bill Mears
|
Story highlights The court could use an obscure act to sidestep the decision until after the election
Three federal appeals courts have upheld the mandate ; one has rejected it as unconstitutional
The Supreme Court in coming days will issue perhaps as many as four separate opinions on the constitutionality of the health care law
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ( PPACA or ACA ) was signed into law March 23 , 2010 , passed by a Democratic congressional majority and championed by President Barack Obama . It has about 2,700 pages and contains 450 some provisions .
Here are the four issues the high court tackled separately during oral arguments in late March . Those issues are expected to play key roles in the judges ' final decisions .
Would those challenging the law be barred from making any legal or constitutional claims until the key provision -- the individual mandate -- goes into effect in 2014 ? The obscure Anti-Injunction Act , dating back 145 years , prevents asking for a refund on a tax until that tax has been collected and paid . Judges in two federal appeals courts have made that `` threshold '' argument , which would effectively stop the current legal fight in its tracks .
Citing that law might give the court -- particularly its conservative members -- a way out of deciding the explosive issue in an election year . The majority could decide that the political branches can best resolve the conflicts , at least for now , or that the matter can be handled after the November elections . It could potentially delay a decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate for at least four years .
This provision would require nearly all Americans to buy some form of health insurance beginning in 2014 or face financial penalties . May the federal government , under the Constitution 's Commerce Clause , regulate economic `` inactivity ? '' Three federal appeals courts have found the PPACA to be constitutional , while another has said it is not , labeling it `` breathtaking in its expansive scope . '' That `` circuit split '' all but assured the Supreme Court would step in to decide the matter .
A coalition of 26 states led by Florida says that individuals can not be forced to buy insurance , a `` product '' they may neither want nor need . The Justice Department has countered that , since every American will need medical care at some point , individuals do not `` choose '' to participate in the health care market . Federal officials cite 2008 figures of $ 43 billion in uncompensated costs incurred by millions of uninsured people who receive health services , costs that are typically shifted to insurance companies and passed on to their insurees .
If the individual mandate section is ruled unconstitutional , must the entire law collapse ?
A federal judge in Florida so ruled in February 2011 : `` Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable , the entire Act must be declared void . '' But a federal appeals court subsequently overruled on the severability question , while upholding the individual mandate 's unconstitutionality . Opponents of the law say the individual mandate is crucial to its overall impact , since it is the main funding mechanism for the expansion of a range of other programs . This might be one question on which the justices will ultimately agree in favor of the government .
JUST WATCHED Affordable care act : What 's on the line ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Affordable care act : What 's on the line ? 03:04
Can states be forced by the federal government to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration , with the risk of losing that funding if they refuse ?
The 28 GOP-led states bringing separate lawsuits say the new law 's expansion of the social safety net unconstitutionally `` coerces '' state governments . That program is administered by the states with a combination of federal and state money , currently requiring coverage only for poor children and their parents or caretakers , adults with disabilities and poor individuals 65 or older . The `` coercion '' issue was surprisingly added to the health care debate by the justices .
Both sides of the issue agree that whatever the high court decides on these four questions could have monumental implications for the federal government 's ability to set long-term national policy goals in areas such as the environment , education and the workplace .
Some states have long complained their autonomy is being eroded by creeping federal intervention on spending matters . Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power `` lay and collect ... taxes to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States '' and to `` regulate commerce ... among the several states . ''
Such authority has long been broadly interpreted , including when imposing conditions on recipients , be they individuals or states . No federal court has ever ruled that states have been unlawfully coerced when they accept conditions attached to federal funds . The Supreme Court in 1987 affirmed that congressional discretion .
Starting in 2014 , PPACA 's Medicaid changes would make millions of additional Americans eligible for benefits by raising the income level under which they would still qualify . That would include all adults living at up to 133 % of the federal poverty line . The tricky question is that states are not forced to agree to the law 's incremental Medicaid increases , which would be spread out over six years . But the states say that abandoning their participation as a result would result in a financial , social and political catastrophe . Their needy citizens rely on Medicaid , states argue , but the law 's expansion of the program could cripple state budgets , currently on average about 20 % . That could threaten other state spending priorities .
So the long-standing fight over `` federalism '' and the leverage the national government wields over states might soon reach epic levels with a high court decision either strengthening or limiting congressional authority on this and potentially a host of other regulatory areas .
|
Story highlights The court could use an obscure act to sidestep the decision until after the election
The key issue is the individual mandate
Three federal appeals courts have upheld the mandate; one has rejected it as unconstitutional
The Supreme Court in coming days will issue perhaps as many as four separate opinions on the constitutionality of the health care law
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA) was signed into law March 23, 2010, passed by a Democratic congressional majority and championed by President Barack Obama. It has about 2,700 pages and contains 450 some provisions.
Here are the four issues the high court tackled separately during oral arguments in late March. Those issues are expected to play key roles in the judges' final decisions.
The gateway issue: Anti-Injunction Act
Would those challenging the law be barred from making any legal or constitutional claims until the key provision -- the individual mandate -- goes into effect in 2014? The obscure Anti-Injunction Act, dating back 145 years, prevents asking for a refund on a tax until that tax has been collected and paid. Judges in two federal appeals courts have made that "threshold" argument, which would effectively stop the current legal fight in its tracks.
Citing that law might give the court-- particularly its conservative members -- a way out of deciding the explosive issue in an election year. The majority could decide that the political branches can best resolve the conflicts, at least for now, or that the matter can be handled after the November elections. It could potentially delay a decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate for at least four years.
The key Issue: Individual mandate
This provision would require nearly all Americans to buy some form of health insurance beginning in 2014 or face financial penalties. May the federal government, under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, regulate economic "inactivity?" Three federal appeals courts have found the PPACA to be constitutional, while another has said it is not, labeling it "breathtaking in its expansive scope." That "circuit split" all but assured the Supreme Court would step in to decide the matter.
A coalition of 26 states led by Florida says that individuals cannot be forced to buy insurance, a "product" they may neither want nor need. The Justice Department has countered that, since every American will need medical care at some point, individuals do not "choose" to participate in the health care market. Federal officials cite 2008 figures of $43 billion in uncompensated costs incurred by millions of uninsured people who receive health services, costs that are typically shifted to insurance companies and passed on to their insurees.
The domino effect issue: Severability
If the individual mandate section is ruled unconstitutional, must the entire law collapse?
A federal judge in Florida so ruled in February 2011: "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void." But a federal appeals court subsequently overruled on the severability question, while upholding the individual mandate's unconstitutionality. Opponents of the law say the individual mandate is crucial to its overall impact, since it is the main funding mechanism for the expansion of a range of other programs. This might be one question on which the justices will ultimately agree in favor of the government.
JUST WATCHED Affordable care act: What's on the line? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Affordable care act: What's on the line? 03:04
The national policy issue: Medicaid "coercion"
Can states be forced by the federal government to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration, with the risk of losing that funding if they refuse?
The 28 GOP-led states bringing separate lawsuits say the new law's expansion of the social safety net unconstitutionally "coerces" state governments. That program is administered by the states with a combination of federal and state money, currently requiring coverage only for poor children and their parents or caretakers, adults with disabilities and poor individuals 65 or older. The "coercion" issue was surprisingly added to the health care debate by the justices.
Overall impact
Both sides of the issue agree that whatever the high court decides on these four questions could have monumental implications for the federal government's ability to set long-term national policy goals in areas such as the environment, education and the workplace.
Some states have long complained their autonomy is being eroded by creeping federal intervention on spending matters. Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power "lay and collect ... taxes to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" and to "regulate commerce ... among the several states."
Such authority has long been broadly interpreted, including when imposing conditions on recipients, be they individuals or states. No federal court has ever ruled that states have been unlawfully coerced when they accept conditions attached to federal funds. The Supreme Court in 1987 affirmed that congressional discretion.
Starting in 2014, PPACA's Medicaid changes would make millions of additional Americans eligible for benefits by raising the income level under which they would still qualify. That would include all adults living at up to 133% of the federal poverty line. The tricky question is that states are not forced to agree to the law's incremental Medicaid increases, which would be spread out over six years. But the states say that abandoning their participation as a result would result in a financial, social and political catastrophe. Their needy citizens rely on Medicaid, states argue, but the law's expansion of the program could cripple state budgets, currently on average about 20%. That could threaten other state spending priorities.
So the long-standing fight over "federalism" and the leverage the national government wields over states might soon reach epic levels with a high court decision either strengthening or limiting congressional authority on this and potentially a host of other regulatory areas.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
MwYgYPMmcP5MtpZW
|
politics
|
Slate
| 00
|
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/barack_obama_s_final_2014_press_conference_the_president_appears_to_be_enjoying.html
|
Fast and Loose
|
2014-12-19
|
John Dickerson
|
President Obama has a more than 11-hour flight ahead of him to Hawaii , but at his press conference on Friday it felt like he was already on vacation . He was loose as he joked with a Politico reporter about the magazine ’ s new Brussels ’ bureau , admitted to another he ’ d forgotten the back half of her list of questions , and even interrupted his remarks to say “ bless you ” to someone who sneezed . Before leaving the podium he offered the traditional Hawaiian Christmas salutation ( Bing Crosby earworm available here ) . But if it seemed like he might let slip the cocktail umbrella up his sleeve into a fruity drink , Obama was more serious about the messages he was sending to everyone from the North Korean dictator to Sony executives and the network television bosses who wouldn ’ t air his address about immigration last month .
In November , President Obama ’ s party took a pounding at the polls . In the press conference the day after , Obama avoided offering a word or descriptive phrase to encapsulate the catastrophe . ( It ’ s something he and past presidents have often done in the wake of a drubbing . ) He then sort of refused to take the loss , reminding the world that he too had a constituency : the voters who elected him and re-elected him , a larger group than had just handed Republicans control of the Senate .
In the 40 days between that press conference and the one he gave Friday , the president has worked that same seam—unburdened and loose from having no more elections to face . First , he announced his support for strong net neutrality , then he announced a climate deal with China—secret and long in the making—that helped jump-start progress in global talks , then he issued the executive order protecting as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants . After that came an EPA ruling on ozone emissions , a budget deal to keep the government open , and the historic deal opening diplomatic relations with Cuba .
This press conference was an exclamation point on this dash in his presidency . Obama clearly seemed pleased with the way things have been going . He said he still remained open to working with Republicans , and he said nothing ill of them . His goal next year , he said , was to separate those things that he and Republicans agree on ( tax reform , infrastructure improvements , and trade ) from those things they will fight passionately over ( everything else ) . 2015 is going to be an exciting year , with Republicans anxious to show they can govern and the president anxious to show he ’ s still got more punch .
Obama did have a little chin music for network television executives whose representatives he didn ’ t call on during the 45-minute event . He only called on female correspondents , in another sign that in ways big and small he ’ s going to do things his way . The president said he thought Sony executives had made a mistake removing The Interview from theaters . “ That ’ s not who we are , ” he said .
In fact , Obama had a lot to say about who we are . Asked about race relations in America , he expanded his remarks to talk about the general resilience and goodness of the American people . It was his own long-standing paean to American Exceptionalism , though his critics say he is only capable of running down the country .
“ The vast majority of people are just trying to do the right thing . People are basically good and have good intentions , ” he said . He said his general theme for the end of the year was , “ We ’ ve gone through difficult times . … But through persistent effort and faith in the American people , things get better . The economy has gotten better . Our ability to generate clean energy has gotten better . We know more about how to educate our kids . We solve problems . Ebola is a real crisis . You get a mistake in the first case because it ’ s not something that ’ s been seen before . We fix it . You have some unaccompanied children who spike at a border . And it may not get fixed in the time frame of the news cycle , but it gets fixed . And , you know , part of what I hope , as we reflect on the new year , this should generate is some confidence . America knows how to solve problems . And when we work together , we can ’ t be stopped . ”
The president said next year will be the fourth quarter of his presidency . An exciting time , he said . Perhaps that will be true if he ’ s got surprises like the ones he unveiled in the past 40 days—the deals with China and Cuba were covert operations . But presidencies aren ’ t like sporting events . Every morning after the final election of a second term , the valet will lay out the lame-duck suit on his chair . The president has vigorously resisted it so far . He will need to rest up on vacation because it will be waiting for him when he returns .
|
President Obama speaks to members of the media during his final press conference of the year at the White House on Dec. 19, 2014, in Washington, D.C. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Obama has a more than 11-hour flight ahead of him to Hawaii, but at his press conference on Friday it felt like he was already on vacation. He was loose as he joked with a Politico reporter about the magazine’s new Brussels’ bureau, admitted to another he’d forgotten the back half of her list of questions, and even interrupted his remarks to say “bless you” to someone who sneezed. Before leaving the podium he offered the traditional Hawaiian Christmas salutation (Bing Crosby earworm available here). But if it seemed like he might let slip the cocktail umbrella up his sleeve into a fruity drink, Obama was more serious about the messages he was sending to everyone from the North Korean dictator to Sony executives and the network television bosses who wouldn’t air his address about immigration last month.
In November, President Obama’s party took a pounding at the polls. In the press conference the day after, Obama avoided offering a word or descriptive phrase to encapsulate the catastrophe. (It’s something he and past presidents have often done in the wake of a drubbing.) He then sort of refused to take the loss, reminding the world that he too had a constituency: the voters who elected him and re-elected him, a larger group than had just handed Republicans control of the Senate.
In the 40 days between that press conference and the one he gave Friday, the president has worked that same seam—unburdened and loose from having no more elections to face. First, he announced his support for strong net neutrality, then he announced a climate deal with China—secret and long in the making—that helped jump-start progress in global talks, then he issued the executive order protecting as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants. After that came an EPA ruling on ozone emissions, a budget deal to keep the government open, and the historic deal opening diplomatic relations with Cuba.
This press conference was an exclamation point on this dash in his presidency. Obama clearly seemed pleased with the way things have been going. He said he still remained open to working with Republicans, and he said nothing ill of them. His goal next year, he said, was to separate those things that he and Republicans agree on (tax reform, infrastructure improvements, and trade) from those things they will fight passionately over (everything else). 2015 is going to be an exciting year, with Republicans anxious to show they can govern and the president anxious to show he’s still got more punch.
Obama did have a little chin music for network television executives whose representatives he didn’t call on during the 45-minute event. He only called on female correspondents, in another sign that in ways big and small he’s going to do things his way. The president said he thought Sony executives had made a mistake removing The Interview from theaters. “That’s not who we are,” he said.
In fact, Obama had a lot to say about who we are. Asked about race relations in America, he expanded his remarks to talk about the general resilience and goodness of the American people. It was his own long-standing paean to American Exceptionalism, though his critics say he is only capable of running down the country.
“The vast majority of people are just trying to do the right thing. People are basically good and have good intentions,” he said. He said his general theme for the end of the year was, “We’ve gone through difficult times. … But through persistent effort and faith in the American people, things get better. The economy has gotten better. Our ability to generate clean energy has gotten better. We know more about how to educate our kids. We solve problems. Ebola is a real crisis. You get a mistake in the first case because it’s not something that’s been seen before. We fix it. You have some unaccompanied children who spike at a border. And it may not get fixed in the time frame of the news cycle, but it gets fixed. And, you know, part of what I hope, as we reflect on the new year, this should generate is some confidence. America knows how to solve problems. And when we work together, we can’t be stopped.”
The president said next year will be the fourth quarter of his presidency. An exciting time, he said. Perhaps that will be true if he’s got surprises like the ones he unveiled in the past 40 days—the deals with China and Cuba were covert operations. But presidencies aren’t like sporting events. Every morning after the final election of a second term, the valet will lay out the lame-duck suit on his chair. The president has vigorously resisted it so far. He will need to rest up on vacation because it will be waiting for him when he returns.
|
www.slate.com
| 0left
|
owBR4Y2EbKxqJ2jW
|
culture
|
Yahoo! News
| 00
|
https://news.yahoo.com/jussie-smollett-case-151348229.html
|
Jussie Smollett case: Hate crime or hoax?
|
2019-02-19
|
Lauren Johnston
|
The 360 is a feature designed to show you diverse perspectives on the day ’ s top stories .
Who : “ Empire ” actor Jussie Smollett , two brothers questioned in his attack , the Chicago police and the rapt public following every beat of this strange case as it continues to unravel .
What : Smollett , who is black and gay , reported that he was attacked by two men and claimed his assailants made racial and homophobic slurs , put a rope around his neck , doused him in bleach and referenced “ MAGA country ” — suggesting they were supporters of President Trump . Law enforcement labeled the attack a hate crime , and celebrities , human rights groups , politicians and fans rallied to support Smollett . Presidential hopefuls Sens . Kamala Harris and Cory Booker called the attack “ an attempted modern-day lynching . ”
Since those initial reports , things have gotten complicated . Police took two brothers into custody as suspects , then released them amid reports that they claimed the attack was a hoax and that Smollett had hired them to stage the assault . Smollett released statements via lawyers refuting the hoax narrative and maintained that he is the victim . He admitted he knows the brothers , and employed one as a personal trainer , but denied their involvement in the attack .
Where : The alleged assault occurred in the downtown Chicago neighborhood of Streeterville .
When : According to Smollett , the attack occurred around 2 a.m. on Jan. 29 . Reports suggesting that it was a hoax began within days , and the full details of the incident are still not known .
Why : Unclear . Early reports suggested Smollett staged the attack because his character was set to be written off “ Empire. ” Fox Entertainment and 20th Century Fox Television , which produces the show , called those reports “ patently ridiculous . ”
What ’ s next : Police say they hope to interview Smollett further to either corroborate or debunk details of the investigation . His spokeswoman said Smollett had no plans for further meetings . Law enforcement officials also revealed that the case could be headed toward a grand jury .
Backlash against the star , his doubters , police and the internet mob is growing . Smollett ’ s supporters feel betrayed that he may have fabricated the story to boost his career . Critics of the Chicago Police Department ’ s history of dealing with racially motivated violence are casting doubt on its handling of the case . Cultural critics are warning of the dangers of making snap judgments based on personal bias in the divisive Trump era . And … much more .
If the attack is a hoax — that ’ s the worst-case scenario .
“ If Smollett ’ s story is found to be untrue , it will cause irreparable damage to the communities most affected . Smollett would be the first example skeptics cite when they say we should be dubious of victims who step forward to share their experiences of racist hate crimes or sexual violence . The incident would be touted as proof that there is a leftist conspiracy to cast Trump supporters as violent , murderous racists . It would be the very embodiment of ‘ fake news. ’ And that reason , more than any other , is why I need this story to be true , despite its ugliness and despite what it would say about the danger of the world I live in . The damage done would be too deep and long-lasting. ” — Nana Efua Mumford , Washington Post
“ If the way the Jussie Smollett fiasco was handled by national media is any indication , due process is becoming a foreign concept in a profession in which one is increasingly considered guilty until proven innocent . … The characters change but the story remains the same : If Trump or a Trump supporter is involved in an incident , guilt is assumed . Due process be damned. ” — Joe Concha , The Hill
It ’ s dangerous to jump on the outrage bandwagon before all facts are known .
“ This case is an object lesson in what happens when people in positions of political and cultural authority abandon critical thinking and pressure those who don ’ t abandon their circumspection under pain of being smeared as bigots . It also exemplifies the tendency of those arbiters to amplify ‘ perfect crimes ’ that advance their political agenda — and to ignore crimes that don ’ t. ” — Noah Rothman , New York Times
|
The 360 is a feature designed to show you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories.
Speed Read
Who: “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett, two brothers questioned in his attack, the Chicago police and the rapt public following every beat of this strange case as it continues to unravel.
What: Smollett, who is black and gay, reported that he was attacked by two men and claimed his assailants made racial and homophobic slurs, put a rope around his neck, doused him in bleach and referenced “MAGA country” — suggesting they were supporters of President Trump. Law enforcement labeled the attack a hate crime, and celebrities, human rights groups, politicians and fans rallied to support Smollett. Presidential hopefuls Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker called the attack “an attempted modern-day lynching.”
Since those initial reports, things have gotten complicated. Police took two brothers into custody as suspects, then released them amid reports that they claimed the attack was a hoax and that Smollett had hired them to stage the assault. Smollett released statements via lawyers refuting the hoax narrative and maintained that he is the victim. He admitted he knows the brothers, and employed one as a personal trainer, but denied their involvement in the attack.
Where: The alleged assault occurred in the downtown Chicago neighborhood of Streeterville.
When: According to Smollett, the attack occurred around 2 a.m. on Jan. 29. Reports suggesting that it was a hoax began within days, and the full details of the incident are still not known.
Why: Unclear. Early reports suggested Smollett staged the attack because his character was set to be written off “Empire.” Fox Entertainment and 20th Century Fox Television, which produces the show, called those reports “patently ridiculous.”
What’s next: Police say they hope to interview Smollett further to either corroborate or debunk details of the investigation. His spokeswoman said Smollett had no plans for further meetings. Law enforcement officials also revealed that the case could be headed toward a grand jury.
Backlash against the star, his doubters, police and the internet mob is growing. Smollett’s supporters feel betrayed that he may have fabricated the story to boost his career. Critics of the Chicago Police Department’s history of dealing with racially motivated violence are casting doubt on its handling of the case. Cultural critics are warning of the dangers of making snap judgments based on personal bias in the divisive Trump era. And … much more.
Perspectives
If the attack is a hoax — that’s the worst-case scenario.
“If Smollett’s story is found to be untrue, it will cause irreparable damage to the communities most affected. Smollett would be the first example skeptics cite when they say we should be dubious of victims who step forward to share their experiences of racist hate crimes or sexual violence. The incident would be touted as proof that there is a leftist conspiracy to cast Trump supporters as violent, murderous racists. It would be the very embodiment of ‘fake news.’ And that reason, more than any other, is why I need this story to be true, despite its ugliness and despite what it would say about the danger of the world I live in. The damage done would be too deep and long-lasting.” — Nana Efua Mumford, Washington Post
Trump supporters are routinely, and unfairly, villainized.
“If the way the Jussie Smollett fiasco was handled by national media is any indication, due process is becoming a foreign concept in a profession in which one is increasingly considered guilty until proven innocent. … The characters change but the story remains the same: If Trump or a Trump supporter is involved in an incident, guilt is assumed. Due process be damned.” — Joe Concha, The Hill
It’s dangerous to jump on the outrage bandwagon before all facts are known.
“This case is an object lesson in what happens when people in positions of political and cultural authority abandon critical thinking and pressure those who don’t abandon their circumspection under pain of being smeared as bigots. It also exemplifies the tendency of those arbiters to amplify ‘perfect crimes’ that advance their political agenda — and to ignore crimes that don’t.” — Noah Rothman, New York Times
|
www.news.yahoo.com
| 0left
|
I9BOVyX6ET38Qc5S
|
white_house
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/10/report-obama-administration-most-secretive-nixon/
|
Report: Obama administration most secretive since Nixon
|
2013-10-10
|
Ben Wolfgang
|
The Obama White House ’ s war against leaks , and its penchant for secrecy and noted lack of transparency , are the worst “ since the Nixon administration , ” according to a major new study that relied on interviews from leading Washington reporters and news organization chiefs .
The report , released Thursday by the Committee to Project Journalists , found that reporters from many major media outlets consider the Obama administration the most closed-off in recent memory , and that there is not “ any precedent ” for its often hostile relationship toward the press .
More than 30 veteran reporters were interviewed for the piece , which was written by CPJ ’ s Leonard Downie Jr. , former executive editor of The Washington Post and now a professor at Arizona State ’ s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication .
The massive study goes into great detail in discussing the administration ’ s battle against leakers such as Edward Snowden ; its “ Insider Threat Program ” that asks government employees to monitor their colleagues ’ behavior ; and general lack of transparency , despite repeated promises from Mr. Obama that his White House would be the most open in history .
“ This is the most closed , control freak administration I ’ ve ever covered , ” wrote New York Times Washington correspondent David Sanger , one of the journalists interviewed for the report .
At least six government employees and two contractors — including Mr. Snowden — have been subjects of felony criminal prosecutions since 2009 , when Mr. Obama came to power .
Other investigations are under way , and notable instances of White House press crackdowns have included Justice Department subpoenas of reporters ’ phone logs and emails ; the inspection of Associated Press phone records ; the accusation that a Fox News reporter was an “ aider , abettor and/or conspirator ” of an indicted leak defendant .
As a result , top journalists now say “ officials are reluctant to discuss even unclassified information with them because they fear that leak investigations and government surveillance make it more difficult for reporters to protect them as sources . ”
“ I worry now about calling somebody because the contact can be found out through a check of phone records or emails , ” said veteran journalist R. Jeffrey Smith , who now works at the Center for Public Integrity , a nonprofit government accountability news group . “ It leaves a digital trail that makes it easier for the government to monitor those contacts . ”
Another reporter said there is a “ real problem ” with the way the Obama administration deals with the press . Another is quoted as saying this White House is one of “ unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on the press . ”
Press secretary Jay Carney was interviewed for the study , and he said “ the idea that people are shutting up and not leaking to reporters is belied by the facts . ”
White House national security adviser Ben Rhodes also disputed the report ’ s findings .
“ We make an effort to communicate about national security issues in on-the-record and background briefings by sanctioned sources . And we still see investigative reporting from nonsanctioned sources with lots of unclassified information and some sensitive information . ”
|
The Obama White House’s war against leaks, and its penchant for secrecy and noted lack of transparency, are the worst “since the Nixon administration,” according to a major new study that relied on interviews from leading Washington reporters and news organization chiefs.
The report, released Thursday by the Committee to Project Journalists, found that reporters from many major media outlets consider the Obama administration the most closed-off in recent memory, and that there is not “any precedent” for its often hostile relationship toward the press.
More than 30 veteran reporters were interviewed for the piece, which was written by CPJ’s Leonard Downie Jr., former executive editor of The Washington Post and now a professor at Arizona State’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
The massive study goes into great detail in discussing the administration’s battle against leakers such as Edward Snowden; its “Insider Threat Program” that asks government employees to monitor their colleagues’ behavior; and general lack of transparency, despite repeated promises from Mr. Obama that his White House would be the most open in history.
“This is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered,” wrote New York Times Washington correspondent David Sanger, one of the journalists interviewed for the report.
At least six government employees and two contractors — including Mr. Snowden — have been subjects of felony criminal prosecutions since 2009, when Mr. Obama came to power.
Other investigations are under way, and notable instances of White House press crackdowns have included Justice Department subpoenas of reporters’ phone logs and emails; the inspection of Associated Press phone records; the accusation that a Fox News reporter was an “aider, abettor and/or conspirator” of an indicted leak defendant.
As a result, top journalists now say “officials are reluctant to discuss even unclassified information with them because they fear that leak investigations and government surveillance make it more difficult for reporters to protect them as sources.”
“I worry now about calling somebody because the contact can be found out through a check of phone records or emails,” said veteran journalist R. Jeffrey Smith, who now works at the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit government accountability news group. “It leaves a digital trail that makes it easier for the government to monitor those contacts.”
Another reporter said there is a “real problem” with the way the Obama administration deals with the press. Another is quoted as saying this White House is one of “unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on the press.”
But the White House continues to defend its behavior.
Press secretary Jay Carney was interviewed for the study, and he said “the idea that people are shutting up and not leaking to reporters is belied by the facts.”
White House national security adviser Ben Rhodes also disputed the report’s findings.
“We make an effort to communicate about national security issues in on-the-record and background briefings by sanctioned sources. And we still see investigative reporting from nonsanctioned sources with lots of unclassified information and some sensitive information.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
mPYP8HfgUkHitqa2
|
isis
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2017/0414/ISIS-fighters-but-no-civilians-killed-in-Afghanistan-bombing
|
ISIS fighters, but no civilians, killed in Afghanistan bombing
|
2017-04-14
|
Amir Shah
|
The attack on a tunnel complex in remote eastern Afghanistan with the largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat by the US military left 36 Islamic State group fighters dead and no civilian casualties , Afghanistan officials said Friday .
The attack was carried out in a remote mountainous area of Nangarhar province near the Pakistan border where there had been heavy fighting in recent weeks between Afghan forces and ISIS militants . The Ministry of Defense said in a statement that several ISIS caves and ammunition caches were destroyed by the giant bomb , which terrified villagers on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with its `` earsplitting blast . ''
`` This is the right weapon for the right target , '' said US Gen. John W. Nicholson , NATO commander in Afghanistan , at a news conference .
The bomb , known officially as a GBU-43B , or massive ordnance air blast weapon , unleashes 11 tons of explosives .
Gen. Daulat Waziri , spokesman for the Afghanistan Ministry of Defense , said the death toll of ISIS fighters could rise . He said the bombing was necessary because the tunnel complex was extremely hard to penetrate , with some as deep as 40 meters ( 43 yards ) .
`` It was a strong position and four times we had operations ( attacking the site ) and it was not possible to advance , '' he said , adding that the road leading to the complex `` was full of mines . ''
Pakistani villagers living near the Afghan border said the explosion was so loud they thought a bomb had been dropped in their village by US warplanes targeting terrorists in Pakistan .
`` I was sleeping when we heard a loud explosion . It was an earsplitting blast , '' said Shah Wali who lives in the village of Goor Gari , 15 kilometers ( 9 miles ) from the border with Nangarhar . `` I jumped from my bed and came out of my home to see what has gone wrong in our village . ''
Mr. Wali said dozens of other villagers also came out of homes and later he went near the border , where he met with other residents . He said he could see smoke in the sky .
The US estimates 600 to 800 ISIS fighters are present in Afghanistan , mostly in Nangarhar . The US has concentrated heavily on combatting them while also supporting Afghan forces battling the Taliban . President Trump called Thursday 's operation a `` very , very successful mission . ''
`` I want a hundred times more bombings on this group , '' said Hakim Khan , a resident of Achin district , the site of the blast .
Inamullah Meyakhil , spokesman for the central hospital in eastern Nangarhar province , said the facility had received no dead or wounded from the attack .
District Gov . Ismail Shinwari said there is no civilian property near the airstrike location .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
There was no immediate comment from the Islamic State group on the attack .
The Site Intelligence Group , which tracks extremist organizations , reported Friday on a statement from the Afghan Taliban condemning the US for its `` terrorist '' attack . The statement said it is the responsibility of Afghans to remove the Islamic State group from the country not the US .
|
The attack on a tunnel complex in remote eastern Afghanistan with the largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat by the US military left 36 Islamic State group fighters dead and no civilian casualties, Afghanistan officials said Friday.
The attack was carried out in a remote mountainous area of Nangarhar province near the Pakistan border where there had been heavy fighting in recent weeks between Afghan forces and ISIS militants. The Ministry of Defense said in a statement that several ISIS caves and ammunition caches were destroyed by the giant bomb, which terrified villagers on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with its "earsplitting blast."
"This is the right weapon for the right target," said US Gen. John W. Nicholson, NATO commander in Afghanistan, at a news conference.
The bomb, known officially as a GBU-43B, or massive ordnance air blast weapon, unleashes 11 tons of explosives.
Gen. Daulat Waziri, spokesman for the Afghanistan Ministry of Defense, said the death toll of ISIS fighters could rise. He said the bombing was necessary because the tunnel complex was extremely hard to penetrate, with some as deep as 40 meters (43 yards).
"It was a strong position and four times we had operations (attacking the site) and it was not possible to advance," he said, adding that the road leading to the complex "was full of mines."
Pakistani villagers living near the Afghan border said the explosion was so loud they thought a bomb had been dropped in their village by US warplanes targeting terrorists in Pakistan.
"I was sleeping when we heard a loud explosion. It was an earsplitting blast," said Shah Wali who lives in the village of Goor Gari, 15 kilometers (9 miles) from the border with Nangarhar. "I jumped from my bed and came out of my home to see what has gone wrong in our village."
Mr. Wali said dozens of other villagers also came out of homes and later he went near the border, where he met with other residents. He said he could see smoke in the sky.
The US estimates 600 to 800 ISIS fighters are present in Afghanistan, mostly in Nangarhar. The US has concentrated heavily on combatting them while also supporting Afghan forces battling the Taliban. President Trump called Thursday's operation a "very, very successful mission."
"I want a hundred times more bombings on this group," said Hakim Khan, a resident of Achin district, the site of the blast.
Inamullah Meyakhil, spokesman for the central hospital in eastern Nangarhar province, said the facility had received no dead or wounded from the attack.
District Gov. Ismail Shinwari said there is no civilian property near the airstrike location.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
There was no immediate comment from the Islamic State group on the attack.
The Site Intelligence Group, which tracks extremist organizations, reported Friday on a statement from the Afghan Taliban condemning the US for its "terrorist" attack. The statement said it is the responsibility of Afghans to remove the Islamic State group from the country not the US.
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
ODZ7ZVn62VIkdEH0
|
politics
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/03/politics/christie-hoboken-mayor-zimmer-accusations/index.html
|
Mayor behind Christie allegations full of contradictions
|
2014-02-03
|
Chris Frates, Cnn Investigative Reporter
|
Story highlights Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer 's allegations against Christie have evolved
Each time Zimmer told her story , the number of people implicated grew
Documents contradict Zimmer 's account of meeting with Sandy funds point man
Zimmer is accused of same tactics she is now alleging against Christie
The Democratic mayor at the center of one of the controversies swirling around Republican Gov . Chris Christie is , to put it politely , a woman of contradictions .
Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer says the New Jersey governor threatened to withhold Superstorm Sandy relief funds unless she got behind a redevelopment project he favors . It 's a story that has changed with the telling .
The inconsistencies do n't stop there . Hundreds of pages of court documents reviewed by CNN raise questions about her allegations against Christie and whether she deals in the same pay-to-play politics she 's alleging against him .
Zimmer 's allegations against Christie have evolved over time . Early on , she said she had no reason to think Christie had retaliated against her . About a week later , she had implicated four senior administration officials , including Christie , in a pressure campaign .
JUST WATCHED Gov . Christie faces new allegations Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Gov . Christie faces new allegations 03:50
JUST WATCHED What did Christie really know ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH What did Christie really know ? 08:00
JUST WATCHED Bridge over troubled waters for Christie Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Bridge over troubled waters for Christie 05:10
On Thursday , January 9 , Christie held a marathon news conference and announced that he had dismissed two top advisers for their suggested roles in tying up traffic on the George Washington Bridge in what may have been an act of political retaliation .
The next day , Zimmer was quoted by a local public radio station saying she was disappointed with how much flood mitigation money she received from the state . But she said she hoped it was n't retribution for not endorsing the governor during last year 's re-election race .
`` With 20/20 hindsight , in the context we 're in right now , you can always look back and say , 'OK , was it retribution ? ' `` Zimmer told WNYC on that Friday . `` I think probably all mayors are reflecting right now and thinking about it , but I really hope that that 's not the case . ''
On Saturday , Zimmer went even farther , telling CNN , `` I do n't think it was retaliation and I do n't have any reason to think it 's retaliation , but I 'm not satisfied with the amount of money I 've gotten so far . ''
Zimmer did , in fact , have some reason to believe it was retaliation , a case she laid out a week later on MSNBC .
On Saturday , January 18 , she told MSNBC 's Steve Kornacki that New Jersey Lt. Gov . Kim Guadagno `` pulled me aside '' at an event in Hoboken and told her that getting Sandy relief funds hinged on supporting the redevelopment project on land owned by The Rockefeller Group .
Zimmer said the conversation was recorded in her diary in which she wrote :
JUST WATCHED Christie booed at Super Bowl event Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Christie booed at Super Bowl event 02:25
JUST WATCHED Will alleged evidence sink Christie ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Will alleged evidence sink Christie ? 01:38
JUST WATCHED Mayor lashes out at Chris Christie Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mayor lashes out at Chris Christie 02:55
`` She pulls me aside with no one else around and says that I need to move forward with the Rockefeller project . It is very important to the governor . The word is that you are against it and you need to move it forward or we are not going to be able to help you . I know it ` s not right . These things should not be connected , but they are . And if you tell anyone I said that , I will deny it . ''
Also in the diary , Zimmer 's allegation that state Community Affairs Commissioner Richard Constable also conditioned Sandy relief funds on moving the development forward .
The day after the MSNBC interview , Zimmer directly implicated Christie , telling CNN 's Candy Crowley that when Guadagno spoke to her last May she was relaying `` a direct message from the governor . ''
When Crowley asked why she was coming forward now , Zimmer said she did n't think anyone would have believed her last May . And she worried that if she did n't say something before the next round of Sandy funding was released , Hoboken would be hurt .
`` I was really concerned that if I came forward , no one believed me , that we would really be cut out of the Sandy funding . But as I watched the coverage with 'Bridgegate , ' you do see parallels , '' she said that Sunday . `` I just felt I had an obligation to come forward and as I look for the second tranche of funding ( to ) come through , I 'm concerned we 're going to be cut out . ''
The next day , January 20 , Zimmer told CNN 's Anderson Cooper that another state official had tied Sandy recovery money to development ; she said she felt pressured by Marc Ferzan , who heads up New Jersey 's storm recovery .
Each time she told the story , the number of people she implicated in the pressure campaign grew .
Zimmer spokesman Juan Melli said , `` The information came out in stages because Mayor Zimmer was asked different questions in each interview by various reporters . She was not presenting a legal case , but was simply answering the questions that she was asked . The U.S. attorney has asked considerably more questions and she will continue to provide them with all the information that they believe is relevant to their investigation . ''
JUST WATCHED Mayor : Christie held Sandy funds hostage Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mayor : Christie held Sandy funds hostage 07:26
JUST WATCHED Mayor 's evidence against Christie Admin . Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mayor 's evidence against Christie Admin . 06:52
JUST WATCHED Mayor shares letters in Sandy funding scandal Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mayor shares letters in Sandy funding scandal 09:23
Melli did n't answer the question of why Zimmer originally said she had no reason to believe Christie had retaliated against her .
Christie 's office responded to Zimmer 's claims by saying Hoboken has gotten millions in federal aid and called the charges `` partisan politics . '' A spokeswoman for Constable said they were `` categorically false '' -- the same language a Christie spokesman used to describe the allegation against Ferzan . And Guadagno called Zimmer 's version of events `` not only false but ... illogical . ''
CNN has obtained documents that contradict Zimmer 's story about her meeting with Ferzan , the governor 's point man for Sandy recovery .
Zimmer said on `` Anderson Cooper 360˚ '' that when she asked for the administration 's support of a flood mitigation project , Ferzan told her , `` 'Well , mayor , you need to let me know how much development you 're willing to do . ' That was the answer that I got back . So , I mean , that pressure is there . ''
But , according to notes from the November 25 meeting taken by a source in the room , Zimmer spoke twice during the Sandy recovery briefing that included about 20 state and local officials . And neither time Ferzan addressed Zimmer 's concerns did it appear he was pressuring her , according to the notes .
The mayor 's spokesman said Zimmer , `` stands by her statement regarding the conversation . ''
Much of Zimmer 's allegations are based on a diary in which she says she took contemporaneous notes of her conversations with Guadagno and Constable .
But court records reviewed by CNN show that , in some cases , Zimmer does n't take notes when talking about city business .
In a successful wrongful termination lawsuit brought by a former Hoboken public safety director , Zimmer was asked by the former director 's attorney , Louis Zayas , if she took notes during her meeting with city department heads .
JUST WATCHED Hoboken mayor : DNC did n't make me do it Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Hoboken mayor : DNC did n't make me do it 03:00
JUST WATCHED Was Christie really 'blindsided ' by scandal ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Was Christie really 'blindsided ' by scandal ? 03:35
JUST WATCHED Gov . Christie knew about lane closures ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Gov . Christie knew about lane closures ? 07:03
`` Generally , when I meet with directors , they know what they need to follow up on and they 're writing it down and so I look to the directors to be writing those things down , '' Zimmer said according to court documents .
`` No , I do n't , '' Zimmer answered , according to the deposition taken in July , just a few months after the conversation with the lieutenant governor she said she recorded in her diary .
In a set of written questions , Zimmer was asked , `` Do you keep a diary , calendar or other means of keeping appointments and notes ? If yes , identify the method by which you maintain your calendar . ''
The mayor answered , `` My calendar is kept in a Google account . The Google account as preceded by an Outlook calendar , '' according to court documents .
`` I do n't believe she was truthful in her deposition that she did n't have a diary . My client observed her on numerous occasions writing things down in a diary , '' Zayas told CNN .
Indeed , Zayas ' client , Angel Alicea , told CNN that Zimmer took notes at every meeting .
Zayas added , `` If she lied about something like that why would you believe that she wrote something contemporaneously at a future occasion . So my question would be , if she lied then , why would you believe her now ? ''
Zimmer 's attorney , Gerald Krovatin , said in a statement to CNN that `` the plain language of the deposition makes clear that ( Zayas ) was referring to calendars and scheduling and appointments for the mayor and whether she takes notes at meetings . Those things bear no relationship to a personal diary or journal . ''
`` This mischaracterization is not surprising coming from Mr. Zayas , who has four pending lawsuits against the city and/or the mayor in which he has demonstrated a clear personal animosity towards the mayor , '' he said .
Zayas also accused Zimmer of perjury , charging that she lied about how she prepared for her testimony , but the judge in the case ignored his claim . In an interview , Krovatin called it a `` stunt by Zayas to generate a headline . ''
A jury found that the city 's decision to terminate Alicea was `` especially egregious '' and that `` upper management '' either participated in or was indifferent to the wrongdoing . They awarded Alicea more than $ 1 million in back pay and punitive damages . They city is appealing .
Another lawsuit featured a bit of a Jersey twist . It essentially accused Zimmer of making the same kinds of threats that she has alleged against Christie .
In this case , the executive director of the Hoboken Housing Authority sued Zimmer , arguing she created `` an unwritten policy of political patronage or 'pay to play ' to reward ... political supporters , '' according to court documents .
The director , Carmelo Garcia , accused a Zimmer ally of threatening his job unless he appointed Zimmer 's choice for general counsel .
`` Unless Director Garcia awarded the government contract to the Law Firm , in particular , and implement ( sic ) Mayor Zimmer 's policies , in general , there would be efforts to make his job difficult to perform and , in effect , his job was at risk , '' according to court documents .
Garcia told CNN , `` I 've been subjected to political bullying , I have been harassed , intimidated and retaliated against , simply because I had blown the whistle and I did not want to partake in a scheme that would require the mayor using the housing authority , which is supposed to be an autonomous entity , to basically give out contracts to politically connected law firms . ''
He called Zimmer 's claims against Christie `` ironic ... almost like the pot calling the kettle black . ''
Zimmer 's spokesman did not speak to the charge that she or her allies threatened Garcia 's job unless he hired her choice of attorney . Instead , he said that one of the suit 's other charges , namely that Zimmer was engaged in an `` ethnic cleansing '' initiative , called into question Garcia 's credibility .
A judge essentially dismissed Garcia 's case , but allowed him to amend and refile it .
|
Story highlights Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer's allegations against Christie have evolved
Each time Zimmer told her story, the number of people implicated grew
Documents contradict Zimmer's account of meeting with Sandy funds point man
Zimmer is accused of same tactics she is now alleging against Christie
The Democratic mayor at the center of one of the controversies swirling around Republican Gov. Chris Christie is, to put it politely, a woman of contradictions.
Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer says the New Jersey governor threatened to withhold Superstorm Sandy relief funds unless she got behind a redevelopment project he favors. It's a story that has changed with the telling.
The inconsistencies don't stop there. Hundreds of pages of court documents reviewed by CNN raise questions about her allegations against Christie and whether she deals in the same pay-to-play politics she's alleging against him.
Zimmer's allegations against Christie have evolved over time. Early on, she said she had no reason to think Christie had retaliated against her. About a week later, she had implicated four senior administration officials, including Christie, in a pressure campaign.
JUST WATCHED Gov. Christie faces new allegations Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Gov. Christie faces new allegations 03:50
JUST WATCHED What did Christie really know? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH What did Christie really know? 08:00
JUST WATCHED Bridge over troubled waters for Christie Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Bridge over troubled waters for Christie 05:10
On Thursday, January 9, Christie held a marathon news conference and announced that he had dismissed two top advisers for their suggested roles in tying up traffic on the George Washington Bridge in what may have been an act of political retaliation.
The next day, Zimmer was quoted by a local public radio station saying she was disappointed with how much flood mitigation money she received from the state. But she said she hoped it wasn't retribution for not endorsing the governor during last year's re-election race.
"With 20/20 hindsight, in the context we're in right now, you can always look back and say, 'OK, was it retribution?' " Zimmer told WNYC on that Friday . "I think probably all mayors are reflecting right now and thinking about it, but I really hope that that's not the case."
On Saturday, Zimmer went even farther, telling CNN, "I don't think it was retaliation and I don't have any reason to think it's retaliation, but I'm not satisfied with the amount of money I've gotten so far."
Turns out, that wasn't exactly true.
Zimmer did, in fact, have some reason to believe it was retaliation, a case she laid out a week later on MSNBC.
On Saturday, January 18, she told MSNBC's Steve Kornacki that New Jersey Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno "pulled me aside" at an event in Hoboken and told her that getting Sandy relief funds hinged on supporting the redevelopment project on land owned by The Rockefeller Group.
Questions about Zimmer's diary
Zimmer said the conversation was recorded in her diary in which she wrote:
JUST WATCHED Christie booed at Super Bowl event Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Christie booed at Super Bowl event 02:25
JUST WATCHED Will alleged evidence sink Christie? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Will alleged evidence sink Christie? 01:38
JUST WATCHED Mayor lashes out at Chris Christie Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mayor lashes out at Chris Christie 02:55
"She pulls me aside with no one else around and says that I need to move forward with the Rockefeller project. It is very important to the governor. The word is that you are against it and you need to move it forward or we are not going to be able to help you. I know it`s not right. These things should not be connected, but they are. And if you tell anyone I said that, I will deny it."
Also in the diary, Zimmer's allegation that state Community Affairs Commissioner Richard Constable also conditioned Sandy relief funds on moving the development forward.
The day after the MSNBC interview, Zimmer directly implicated Christie, telling CNN's Candy Crowley that when Guadagno spoke to her last May she was relaying "a direct message from the governor."
When Crowley asked why she was coming forward now, Zimmer said she didn't think anyone would have believed her last May. And she worried that if she didn't say something before the next round of Sandy funding was released, Hoboken would be hurt.
"I was really concerned that if I came forward, no one believed me, that we would really be cut out of the Sandy funding. But as I watched the coverage with 'Bridgegate,' you do see parallels," she said that Sunday. "I just felt I had an obligation to come forward and as I look for the second tranche of funding (to) come through, I'm concerned we're going to be cut out."
The next day, January 20, Zimmer told CNN's Anderson Cooper that another state official had tied Sandy recovery money to development; she said she felt pressured by Marc Ferzan, who heads up New Jersey's storm recovery.
Each time she told the story, the number of people she implicated in the pressure campaign grew.
Spokesman: Information came out in stages
Zimmer spokesman Juan Melli said, "The information came out in stages because Mayor Zimmer was asked different questions in each interview by various reporters. She was not presenting a legal case, but was simply answering the questions that she was asked. The U.S. attorney has asked considerably more questions and she will continue to provide them with all the information that they believe is relevant to their investigation."
JUST WATCHED Mayor: Christie held Sandy funds hostage Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mayor: Christie held Sandy funds hostage 07:26
JUST WATCHED Mayor's evidence against Christie Admin. Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mayor's evidence against Christie Admin. 06:52
JUST WATCHED Mayor shares letters in Sandy funding scandal Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mayor shares letters in Sandy funding scandal 09:23
Melli didn't answer the question of why Zimmer originally said she had no reason to believe Christie had retaliated against her.
Christie's office responded to Zimmer's claims by saying Hoboken has gotten millions in federal aid and called the charges "partisan politics." A spokeswoman for Constable said they were "categorically false" -- the same language a Christie spokesman used to describe the allegation against Ferzan. And Guadagno called Zimmer's version of events "not only false but ... illogical."
CNN has obtained documents that contradict Zimmer's story about her meeting with Ferzan, the governor's point man for Sandy recovery.
Zimmer said on "Anderson Cooper 360˚" that when she asked for the administration's support of a flood mitigation project, Ferzan told her, "'Well, mayor, you need to let me know how much development you're willing to do.' That was the answer that I got back. So, I mean, that pressure is there."
But, according to notes from the November 25 meeting taken by a source in the room, Zimmer spoke twice during the Sandy recovery briefing that included about 20 state and local officials. And neither time Ferzan addressed Zimmer's concerns did it appear he was pressuring her, according to the notes.
The mayor's spokesman said Zimmer, "stands by her statement regarding the conversation."
Much of Zimmer's allegations are based on a diary in which she says she took contemporaneous notes of her conversations with Guadagno and Constable.
Note-taking habits in question
But court records reviewed by CNN show that, in some cases, Zimmer doesn't take notes when talking about city business.
In a successful wrongful termination lawsuit brought by a former Hoboken public safety director, Zimmer was asked by the former director's attorney, Louis Zayas, if she took notes during her meeting with city department heads.
JUST WATCHED Hoboken mayor: DNC didn't make me do it Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Hoboken mayor: DNC didn't make me do it 03:00
JUST WATCHED Was Christie really 'blindsided' by scandal? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Was Christie really 'blindsided' by scandal? 03:35
JUST WATCHED Gov. Christie knew about lane closures? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Gov. Christie knew about lane closures? 07:03
"Generally, when I meet with directors, they know what they need to follow up on and they're writing it down and so I look to the directors to be writing those things down," Zimmer said according to court documents.
"But you don't," Zayas asked Zimmer.
"No, I don't," Zimmer answered, according to the deposition taken in July, just a few months after the conversation with the lieutenant governor she said she recorded in her diary.
In a set of written questions, Zimmer was asked, "Do you keep a diary, calendar or other means of keeping appointments and notes? If yes, identify the method by which you maintain your calendar."
The mayor answered, "My calendar is kept in a Google account. The Google account as preceded by an Outlook calendar," according to court documents.
Zayas said that Zimmer lied.
"I don't believe she was truthful in her deposition that she didn't have a diary. My client observed her on numerous occasions writing things down in a diary," Zayas told CNN.
Indeed, Zayas' client, Angel Alicea, told CNN that Zimmer took notes at every meeting.
Zayas added, "If she lied about something like that why would you believe that she wrote something contemporaneously at a future occasion. So my question would be, if she lied then, why would you believe her now?"
Zimmer's attorney, Gerald Krovatin, said in a statement to CNN that "the plain language of the deposition makes clear that (Zayas) was referring to calendars and scheduling and appointments for the mayor and whether she takes notes at meetings. Those things bear no relationship to a personal diary or journal."
"This mischaracterization is not surprising coming from Mr. Zayas, who has four pending lawsuits against the city and/or the mayor in which he has demonstrated a clear personal animosity towards the mayor," he said.
Zayas also accused Zimmer of perjury, charging that she lied about how she prepared for her testimony, but the judge in the case ignored his claim. In an interview, Krovatin called it a "stunt by Zayas to generate a headline."
A jury found that the city's decision to terminate Alicea was "especially egregious" and that "upper management" either participated in or was indifferent to the wrongdoing. They awarded Alicea more than $1 million in back pay and punitive damages. They city is appealing.
A bit of a Jersey twist
Another lawsuit featured a bit of a Jersey twist. It essentially accused Zimmer of making the same kinds of threats that she has alleged against Christie.
In this case, the executive director of the Hoboken Housing Authority sued Zimmer, arguing she created "an unwritten policy of political patronage or 'pay to play' to reward ... political supporters," according to court documents.
The director, Carmelo Garcia, accused a Zimmer ally of threatening his job unless he appointed Zimmer's choice for general counsel.
"Unless Director Garcia awarded the government contract to the Law Firm, in particular, and implement (sic) Mayor Zimmer's policies, in general, there would be efforts to make his job difficult to perform and, in effect, his job was at risk," according to court documents.
Garcia told CNN, "I've been subjected to political bullying, I have been harassed, intimidated and retaliated against, simply because I had blown the whistle and I did not want to partake in a scheme that would require the mayor using the housing authority, which is supposed to be an autonomous entity, to basically give out contracts to politically connected law firms."
He called Zimmer's claims against Christie "ironic ... almost like the pot calling the kettle black."
Zimmer's spokesman did not speak to the charge that she or her allies threatened Garcia's job unless he hired her choice of attorney. Instead, he said that one of the suit's other charges, namely that Zimmer was engaged in an "ethnic cleansing" initiative, called into question Garcia's credibility.
A judge essentially dismissed Garcia's case, but allowed him to amend and refile it.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
XJWJmNZHhyhBVMs0
|
polarization
|
Vox
| 00
|
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/30/13765248/donald-trump-race-priming-political-science
|
Donald Trump has every reason to keep white people thinking about race
|
2016-11-30
|
Dylan Matthews, Tara Golshan, Alex Ward, Nicole Narea, Emily Todd Vanderwerff, David Roberts, Ella Nilsen
|
That is White House chief strategist Steve Bannon ’ s deepest wish about the Democratic party , according to an interview with The American Prospect ’ s Robert Kuttner .
“ If the left is focused on race and identity , and we go with economic nationalism , we can crush the Democrats . ”
It ’ s a bit hard to interpret what Bannon ’ s saying here . Does he think that emphasizing racial issues is a losing approach to campaigns , that the party that does it will suffer , and that both Democrats and Republicans would perform better by talking exclusively about the economy ? Or does he mean that he wants Democrats to bring race up , because Bannon thinks that when race is the topic at hand , the result is a public backlash to racial tolerance , which benefits the President ?
If the latter is what Bannon means , then he might not be wrong . There ’ s a substantial body of research in political science and political psychology suggesting that even very mild messages or cues that touch on race can alter political opinions .
The landmark book on the subject is Princeton professor Tali Mendelberg 's 2001 book The Race Card , which marshaled a wide array of evidence to show that implicit racial messages are used with shocking regularity by American politicians , and have real effects .
Mendelberg looks back to George H.W . Bush ’ s 1988 attacks on Michael Dukakis for furloughing murderer Willie Horton , which weren ’ t explicitly racial , but she argues compellingly that tying Dukakis to a black murderer successfully appealed to white voters who already held racially conservative views .
Mendelberg also runs her own experiment to explore the idea . She conducted a study with a random sample of Michigan voters where she showed fake television news stories about a gubernatorial race ; in the stories , the conservative candidate was arguing that welfare recipients were an unfair burden . Some of the fake stories featured B-roll of black welfare recipients ; others featured B-roll of white recipients . They were otherwise identical — but the stories with B-roll of black recipients led respondents to express significantly more hostile views toward government programs to assist black people . In fact , the effect on their expressed racial views was stronger than the effect on their expressed opinions on welfare .
But the cues can be subtler still , as other research points out . Nicholas Valentino , Vincent Hutchings , and Ismail White manipulated a 2000 campaign ad by George W. Bush that was n't even about welfare — it was about health care and taxes — by adding imagery of black people counting money , or a white nurse assisting a black mother , while a narrator says , `` He 'll reform an unfair system that only provides health care for some . '' In their control group , which saw no ads , measured levels of racial resentment didn ’ t do much to predict support for Bush versus Gore . Among people who saw the ad with racial cues , their preexisting level of racial resentment was hugely predictive of their presidential preference .
My favorite study on this topic comes from Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos . He sent pairs of native Spanish-speaking Latino men to ride commuter trains in Boston , surveyed their fellow riders ' political views both before and after , and also surveyed riders on trains not used in the experiment as a control .
`` The results were clear , '' Enos wrote in a Washington Post op-ed . `` After coming into contact , for just minutes each day , with two more Latinos than they would otherwise see or interact with , the riders , who were mostly white and liberal , were sharply more opposed to allowing more immigrants into the country and favored returning the children of illegal immigrants to their parents ’ home country . It was a stark shift from their pre-experiment interviews , during which they expressed more neutral attitudes . ''
Dwell on that . Merely being in the presence of Latino people changed liberal voters ’ attitudes on immigration . That ’ s among the most subtle cues imaginable . And this is a study conducted in the field , among real people , not in a lab .
People take their opinions from elites — and Trump is a political elite now
All of this research suggests that priming white people to so much as think about race , even subconsciously , pushes them toward racially regressive views . So consider the fact that the constant racial controversies of the Trump administration are going to keep racial issues in the news , and on the minds of white Americans .
The optimistic read is that this will disgust Americans who want unity and progress — they also elected Barack Obama , and by a wider margin , didn ’ t they ? The less optimistic read is that by putting the issue at the forefront of everyone ’ s consciousness , the controversies will drive white people to become more hostile to black , Latino , and Muslim people .
This is a particularly concerning point given the voluminous body of political science research indicating that people take their policy views largely from elites . UC Berkeley political scientist Gabriel Lenz 's book Follow the Leader makes this point in great detail , and it ’ s been powerfully illustrated in recent experimental work by Stanford ’ s David Broockman and Washington University in St. Louis ’ s Daniel Butler .
Broockman and Butler got a number of state legislators to randomly send out letters to constituents ; some explained a policy position of the legislator in detail , some only briefly and with minimal justification , and the others were neutral controls . They also surveyed the constituents receiving the letters , both before and after . They found that receiving letters often led constituents to adopt their representative ’ s opinion , even when they had disagreed before .
This inverts our normal understanding of politics . We tend to think politicians are poll-obsessed creatures who follow public opinion . In fact , they are often trusted authorities who lead public opinion . Think of the Republican Party turning its voters against the individual mandate , an idea conservatives had come up with , or the Obama administration carrying out drone wars that would have shocked liberals if they had been conducted by George W. Bush .
And now that Trump , the most covered politician in the country , is overseeing a series of racial controversies , it seems likely that his supporters , and Republicans in general , will respond like Lenz , Broockman , and Butler have found they do : by adopting their preferred candidate ’ s views as their own . By following their leader .
Take Trump ’ s response to Charlottesville . His opponents will point out , correctly , that it is racist . But the research on elite opinion and mass opinion suggests that people who voted for Trump will hear his denials , and his counterattacks , and progressively become more and more okay with more and more troublesome racially biased policies and statements , until by the end of his administration they ’ re expressing more racially retrograde views than they started with . And that could effect a shift in public opinion that damages politics for years .
More broadly , Trump ’ s racial controversies — and the justifiably outraged reactions of Democrats and other political opponents — are going to keep issues of race salient in a way they weren ’ t under the Bush or even Obama administrations , both of which took pains to avoid blow-ups on issues of race . Under Trump , race will stay in the headlines , at the forefront of political debates , on news chyrons , just as it was throughout the 2016 election .
If merely thinking about race pushes white people , even liberal white people as in the Enos study , to be more racially resentful , that could have major consequences even outside a rally-around-the-leader effect . The issue being a persistent topic at all could produce a more racially resentful white electorate .
Is Trump too explicit in his racial provocation to really capitalize on it ?
Happy # CincoDeMayo ! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill . I love Hispanics ! https : //t.co/ufoTeQd8yA pic.twitter.com/k01Mc6CuDI — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) May 5 , 2016
One reason for optimism is that Mendelberg and other researchers have often found that explicit racial appeals — for example , mentions of not just the undeserving poor while imagery of black people rushes by , but of undeserving black poor people — are less effective than implicit appeals .
The reason is that people have internalized a pretty strong norm that they ’ re not allowed to express open antagonism toward black people , or explicitly racist views . “ The social prohibition against making racist statements in public acts as a constraint against playing the race card in a recognizable fashion , ” Mendelberg writes . “ Violating this norm is costly for Republicans … it is costly even with their core constituency of racially resentful whites . ”
In fact , Mendelberg argues that this makes calling attention to implicit racial appeals a power tool for anti-racist activists . When Jesse Jackson pointed out that Bush ’ s Willie Horton attacks were tinged with racism , it turned the implicit racial appeal of Horton into an explicit one and lessened the attack ’ s effectiveness . In other words : People can fight racism by pointing out that racist stuff is racist .
Trump ’ s appeals are pretty explicit , by these standards . During the campaign , he wasn ’ t oblique about the danger of terrorism and immigration , but talked about Muslim people and “ rapist ” Mexicans specifically . That should , in theory , lessen the attack ’ s effectiveness .
This view isn ’ t unchallenged in political science . One notable critique of Mendelberg ’ s work agreed that implicit racial appeals can work , particularly with less educated voters , but argued that explicit appeals work just as well . But it offers reason for hope .
So does the research of UC Irvine ’ s Michael Tesler , a leading scholar of race and public opion . Then again , Tesler has found that Trump ’ s unpopularity could be reducing the public ’ s attraction to his more out-there racial views .
Support for the border wall actually fell during the 2016 campaign , for instance , including in polls tracking the exact same individuals . Public attitudes to Muslims also improved during the campaign . Tesler calls this “ trickle-down tolerance , ” and there ’ s a surprising amount of evidence for it , even overseas ; there ’ s reason to believe disgust with Trump might have contributed to UK Prime Minister Theresa May ’ s surprisingly weak electoral showing in the June election .
“ I actually think Trump 's unpopularity will help liberalize racial attitudes in the long-run , ” Tesler says . “ The problem for racial divisions , though , is he also polarizes attitudes about things where there should be consensus , like condemning white supremacists and that could lead to a revival of overtly racist beliefs . ”
|
"I want them to talk about racism every day."
That is White House chief strategist Steve Bannon’s deepest wish about the Democratic party, according to an interview with The American Prospect’s Robert Kuttner.
“If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”
It’s a bit hard to interpret what Bannon’s saying here. Does he think that emphasizing racial issues is a losing approach to campaigns, that the party that does it will suffer, and that both Democrats and Republicans would perform better by talking exclusively about the economy? Or does he mean that he wants Democrats to bring race up, because Bannon thinks that when race is the topic at hand, the result is a public backlash to racial tolerance, which benefits the President?
If the latter is what Bannon means, then he might not be wrong. There’s a substantial body of research in political science and political psychology suggesting that even very mild messages or cues that touch on race can alter political opinions.
The landmark book on the subject is Princeton professor Tali Mendelberg's 2001 book The Race Card, which marshaled a wide array of evidence to show that implicit racial messages are used with shocking regularity by American politicians, and have real effects.
Mendelberg looks back to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 attacks on Michael Dukakis for furloughing murderer Willie Horton, which weren’t explicitly racial, but she argues compellingly that tying Dukakis to a black murderer successfully appealed to white voters who already held racially conservative views.
Mendelberg also runs her own experiment to explore the idea. She conducted a study with a random sample of Michigan voters where she showed fake television news stories about a gubernatorial race; in the stories, the conservative candidate was arguing that welfare recipients were an unfair burden. Some of the fake stories featured B-roll of black welfare recipients; others featured B-roll of white recipients. They were otherwise identical — but the stories with B-roll of black recipients led respondents to express significantly more hostile views toward government programs to assist black people. In fact, the effect on their expressed racial views was stronger than the effect on their expressed opinions on welfare.
But the cues can be subtler still, as other research points out. Nicholas Valentino, Vincent Hutchings, and Ismail White manipulated a 2000 campaign ad by George W. Bush that wasn't even about welfare — it was about health care and taxes — by adding imagery of black people counting money, or a white nurse assisting a black mother, while a narrator says, "He'll reform an unfair system that only provides health care for some." In their control group, which saw no ads, measured levels of racial resentment didn’t do much to predict support for Bush versus Gore. Among people who saw the ad with racial cues, their preexisting level of racial resentment was hugely predictive of their presidential preference.
My favorite study on this topic comes from Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos. He sent pairs of native Spanish-speaking Latino men to ride commuter trains in Boston, surveyed their fellow riders' political views both before and after, and also surveyed riders on trains not used in the experiment as a control.
"The results were clear," Enos wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. "After coming into contact, for just minutes each day, with two more Latinos than they would otherwise see or interact with, the riders, who were mostly white and liberal, were sharply more opposed to allowing more immigrants into the country and favored returning the children of illegal immigrants to their parents’ home country. It was a stark shift from their pre-experiment interviews, during which they expressed more neutral attitudes."
Dwell on that. Merely being in the presence of Latino people changed liberal voters’ attitudes on immigration. That’s among the most subtle cues imaginable. And this is a study conducted in the field, among real people, not in a lab.
Now let’s talk about the Trump administration.
People take their opinions from elites — and Trump is a political elite now
All of this research suggests that priming white people to so much as think about race, even subconsciously, pushes them toward racially regressive views. So consider the fact that the constant racial controversies of the Trump administration are going to keep racial issues in the news, and on the minds of white Americans.
The optimistic read is that this will disgust Americans who want unity and progress — they also elected Barack Obama, and by a wider margin, didn’t they? The less optimistic read is that by putting the issue at the forefront of everyone’s consciousness, the controversies will drive white people to become more hostile to black, Latino, and Muslim people.
This is a particularly concerning point given the voluminous body of political science research indicating that people take their policy views largely from elites. UC Berkeley political scientist Gabriel Lenz's book Follow the Leader makes this point in great detail, and it’s been powerfully illustrated in recent experimental work by Stanford’s David Broockman and Washington University in St. Louis’s Daniel Butler.
Broockman and Butler got a number of state legislators to randomly send out letters to constituents; some explained a policy position of the legislator in detail, some only briefly and with minimal justification, and the others were neutral controls. They also surveyed the constituents receiving the letters, both before and after. They found that receiving letters often led constituents to adopt their representative’s opinion, even when they had disagreed before.
This inverts our normal understanding of politics. We tend to think politicians are poll-obsessed creatures who follow public opinion. In fact, they are often trusted authorities who lead public opinion. Think of the Republican Party turning its voters against the individual mandate, an idea conservatives had come up with, or the Obama administration carrying out drone wars that would have shocked liberals if they had been conducted by George W. Bush.
And now that Trump, the most covered politician in the country, is overseeing a series of racial controversies, it seems likely that his supporters, and Republicans in general, will respond like Lenz, Broockman, and Butler have found they do: by adopting their preferred candidate’s views as their own. By following their leader.
Take Trump’s response to Charlottesville. His opponents will point out, correctly, that it is racist. But the research on elite opinion and mass opinion suggests that people who voted for Trump will hear his denials, and his counterattacks, and progressively become more and more okay with more and more troublesome racially biased policies and statements, until by the end of his administration they’re expressing more racially retrograde views than they started with. And that could effect a shift in public opinion that damages politics for years.
More broadly, Trump’s racial controversies — and the justifiably outraged reactions of Democrats and other political opponents — are going to keep issues of race salient in a way they weren’t under the Bush or even Obama administrations, both of which took pains to avoid blow-ups on issues of race. Under Trump, race will stay in the headlines, at the forefront of political debates, on news chyrons, just as it was throughout the 2016 election.
If merely thinking about race pushes white people, even liberal white people as in the Enos study, to be more racially resentful, that could have major consequences even outside a rally-around-the-leader effect. The issue being a persistent topic at all could produce a more racially resentful white electorate.
Is Trump too explicit in his racial provocation to really capitalize on it?
Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics! https://t.co/ufoTeQd8yA pic.twitter.com/k01Mc6CuDI — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 5, 2016
One reason for optimism is that Mendelberg and other researchers have often found that explicit racial appeals — for example, mentions of not just the undeserving poor while imagery of black people rushes by, but of undeserving black poor people — are less effective than implicit appeals.
The reason is that people have internalized a pretty strong norm that they’re not allowed to express open antagonism toward black people, or explicitly racist views. “The social prohibition against making racist statements in public acts as a constraint against playing the race card in a recognizable fashion,” Mendelberg writes. “Violating this norm is costly for Republicans … it is costly even with their core constituency of racially resentful whites.”
In fact, Mendelberg argues that this makes calling attention to implicit racial appeals a power tool for anti-racist activists. When Jesse Jackson pointed out that Bush’s Willie Horton attacks were tinged with racism, it turned the implicit racial appeal of Horton into an explicit one and lessened the attack’s effectiveness. In other words: People can fight racism by pointing out that racist stuff is racist.
Trump’s appeals are pretty explicit, by these standards. During the campaign, he wasn’t oblique about the danger of terrorism and immigration, but talked about Muslim people and “rapist” Mexicans specifically. That should, in theory, lessen the attack’s effectiveness.
This view isn’t unchallenged in political science. One notable critique of Mendelberg’s work agreed that implicit racial appeals can work, particularly with less educated voters, but argued that explicit appeals work just as well. But it offers reason for hope.
So does the research of UC Irvine’s Michael Tesler, a leading scholar of race and public opion. Then again, Tesler has found that Trump’s unpopularity could be reducing the public’s attraction to his more out-there racial views.
Support for the border wall actually fell during the 2016 campaign, for instance, including in polls tracking the exact same individuals. Public attitudes to Muslims also improved during the campaign. Tesler calls this “trickle-down tolerance,” and there’s a surprising amount of evidence for it, even overseas; there’s reason to believe disgust with Trump might have contributed to UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s surprisingly weak electoral showing in the June election.
“I actually think Trump's unpopularity will help liberalize racial attitudes in the long-run,” Tesler says. “The problem for racial divisions, though, is he also polarizes attitudes about things where there should be consensus, like condemning white supremacists and that could lead to a revival of overtly racist beliefs.”
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
wKPLSBqoDEg8cMns
|
elections
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/us/politics/campaigns-raise-focus-on-women-for-final-weeks.html?ref=politics&gwh=D31CE6F52764D30E1DAD3D3128A5A5DC
|
Rival Campaigns Intently Pursue Votes of Women
|
2012-10-18
|
Jim Rutenberg, Jeremy W. Peters
|
Mr. Romney , at a campaign rally in Chesapeake , Va. , hit back . “ This president has failed America ’ s women , ” he said . “ They ’ ve suffered in terms of getting jobs . They ’ ve suffered in terms of falling into poverty . ”
For Mr. Romney , the imperative , with less than three weeks until Election Day , is cutting into what has been Mr. Obama ’ s sizable lead among women .
Their goal , Romney aides said , is to keep Mr. Obama ’ s lead among women , which in many polls has been in double digits , down to the low single digits .
Key to that effort , they said , is changing the perception among undecided women that Mr. Romney holds very conservative positions on social issues , after a Republican primary campaign in which Mr. Romney was under constant pressure from the right .
Through polling and focus groups , the Romney campaign has found that while undecided women said they were concerned primarily about economic issues , they were troubled by whether Mr. Romney ’ s positions on issues like abortion and contraception were too unyielding .
Mr. Romney , who while running for governor in 2002 said he would govern as a supporter of abortion rights but subsequently came to shift his position , now opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest . On access to contraception , Mr. Romney has emphasized his opposition to Obama administration policies that he says pressure religious employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception .
He has not sought to limit access to contraception but has voiced support for a provision that would give other employers the right to deny coverage for contraception on moral grounds .
Mr. Romney and his team have tried to address these concerns . They said perceptions of Mr. Romney ’ s positions had been unfairly shaped by Mr. Obama ’ s advertising , including ads focused on abortion rights .
According to data from Kantar Media/CMAG , the Obama campaign and Democratic groups have run commercials relating to abortion about 30,000 times since July 2 — about 10 percent of their ads — including one that falsely claimed Mr. Romney ’ s opposition to abortion extended to cases of rape and incest .
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 .
Mr. Romney ’ s latest television ad answering that barrage potentially creates the risk that it will remind voters of how Mr. Romney has altered his position on abortion over the course of his political career .
Romney campaign strategists said they decided to release the ad this week because they believe it will have maximum impact as late-deciding voters tune in .
The ad was produced within the last two weeks , after strategists identified Sara Minto of Ohio , one of their volunteers , as a plausible “ ideal everywoman . ”
“ You know , those ads saying Mitt Romney would ban all abortions and contraception seemed a bit extreme , so I looked into it , ” says Ms. Minto , sitting in her living room . She adds that she voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 .
“ Turns out Romney doesn ’ t oppose contraception at all . In fact , he thinks abortion should be an option in cases of rape , incest or to save a mother ’ s life , ” she continues .
Joel Benenson , Mr. Obama ’ s pollster , said in an interview he did not believe Mr. Romney would succeed in changing minds , saying , “ Perceptions are pretty baked in because of a range of positions on both the economic front and the social front . ”
In a conference call with reporters , Cecile Richards , the president of Planned Parenthood , accused Mr. Romney of trying to “ mislead the American people about his plan to turn women ’ s health care decisions over to their bosses . ”
She pointed to Mr. Romney ’ s statement of support last winter for the Blunt Amendment , which would allow employers to deny health coverage for procedures they find morally objectionable . ( It came after he initially told an Ohio television station that he opposed the bill . )
That conference call included a statement from Lilly Ledbetter , the retired tire worker who became the impetus for the Fair Pay Act that made it easier for women to sue over pay disparity . Mr. Obama backed the legislation and signed it into law . Mr. Romney has not taken a definite position on it , though he has said he sees no reason to change it .
The call also featured Jesse Mermell , who had been executive director of the Massachusetts Government Appointments Project , which provided Mr. Romney with the “ binders ” he referred to when he said in the debate , “ I went to a number of women ’ s groups and said , ‘ Can you help us find folks , ’ and they brought us whole binders full of women. ” Ms. Mermell said the binder was prepared for whomever won that election .
Obama campaign officials made it clear that they would continue to press the arguments about Mr. Romney ’ s record on women ’ s issues in advertisements , and they spent an additional $ 7 million on a final-stretch television blitz that was already costing $ 40 million .
Mr. Romney ’ s campaign had its own offensive ready . In a phone call with reporters , Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire said “ when the president talks about women ’ s issues he doesn ’ t talk about his vision for how he ’ s going to make sure that we address the number of women who are under- or unemployed . ”
And late Wednesday , the Romney campaign released an advertisement featuring women who had served in his state administration who say they were struck by his “ humanity , ” say he “ gets working women ” and stands by single mothers .
|
Mr. Romney, at a campaign rally in Chesapeake, Va., hit back. “This president has failed America’s women,” he said. “They’ve suffered in terms of getting jobs. They’ve suffered in terms of falling into poverty.”
For Mr. Romney, the imperative, with less than three weeks until Election Day, is cutting into what has been Mr. Obama’s sizable lead among women.
Their goal, Romney aides said, is to keep Mr. Obama’s lead among women, which in many polls has been in double digits, down to the low single digits.
Photo
Key to that effort, they said, is changing the perception among undecided women that Mr. Romney holds very conservative positions on social issues, after a Republican primary campaign in which Mr. Romney was under constant pressure from the right.
Through polling and focus groups, the Romney campaign has found that while undecided women said they were concerned primarily about economic issues, they were troubled by whether Mr. Romney’s positions on issues like abortion and contraception were too unyielding.
Mr. Romney, who while running for governor in 2002 said he would govern as a supporter of abortion rights but subsequently came to shift his position, now opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest. On access to contraception, Mr. Romney has emphasized his opposition to Obama administration policies that he says pressure religious employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception.
He has not sought to limit access to contraception but has voiced support for a provision that would give other employers the right to deny coverage for contraception on moral grounds.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Mr. Romney and his team have tried to address these concerns. They said perceptions of Mr. Romney’s positions had been unfairly shaped by Mr. Obama’s advertising, including ads focused on abortion rights.
According to data from Kantar Media/CMAG, the Obama campaign and Democratic groups have run commercials relating to abortion about 30,000 times since July 2 — about 10 percent of their ads — including one that falsely claimed Mr. Romney’s opposition to abortion extended to cases of rape and incest.
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.
Mr. Romney’s latest television ad answering that barrage potentially creates the risk that it will remind voters of how Mr. Romney has altered his position on abortion over the course of his political career.
Romney campaign strategists said they decided to release the ad this week because they believe it will have maximum impact as late-deciding voters tune in.
The ad was produced within the last two weeks, after strategists identified Sara Minto of Ohio, one of their volunteers, as a plausible “ideal everywoman.”
Video
“You know, those ads saying Mitt Romney would ban all abortions and contraception seemed a bit extreme, so I looked into it,” says Ms. Minto, sitting in her living room. She adds that she voted for Mr. Obama in 2008.
“Turns out Romney doesn’t oppose contraception at all. In fact, he thinks abortion should be an option in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life,” she continues.
Joel Benenson, Mr. Obama’s pollster, said in an interview he did not believe Mr. Romney would succeed in changing minds, saying, “Perceptions are pretty baked in because of a range of positions on both the economic front and the social front.”
In a conference call with reporters, Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, accused Mr. Romney of trying to “mislead the American people about his plan to turn women’s health care decisions over to their bosses.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
She pointed to Mr. Romney’s statement of support last winter for the Blunt Amendment, which would allow employers to deny health coverage for procedures they find morally objectionable. (It came after he initially told an Ohio television station that he opposed the bill.)
That conference call included a statement from Lilly Ledbetter, the retired tire worker who became the impetus for the Fair Pay Act that made it easier for women to sue over pay disparity. Mr. Obama backed the legislation and signed it into law. Mr. Romney has not taken a definite position on it, though he has said he sees no reason to change it.
The call also featured Jesse Mermell, who had been executive director of the Massachusetts Government Appointments Project, which provided Mr. Romney with the “binders” he referred to when he said in the debate, “I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks,’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.” Ms. Mermell said the binder was prepared for whomever won that election.
Obama campaign officials made it clear that they would continue to press the arguments about Mr. Romney’s record on women’s issues in advertisements, and they spent an additional $7 million on a final-stretch television blitz that was already costing $40 million.
Mr. Romney’s campaign had its own offensive ready. In a phone call with reporters, Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire said “when the president talks about women’s issues he doesn’t talk about his vision for how he’s going to make sure that we address the number of women who are under- or unemployed.”
And late Wednesday, the Romney campaign released an advertisement featuring women who had served in his state administration who say they were struck by his “humanity,” say he “gets working women” and stands by single mothers.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
HLLLZGk8Aa8tfvDH
|
politics
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/25/manafort-trump-russia-advise-238803
|
Manafort advised Trump team on Russia scandal
|
2017-05-25
|
Paul Demko, Kenneth P. Vogel, Bill Scher
|
Months after the FBI began examining Paul Manafort as part of a probe into ties between President Donald Trump ’ s team and Russia , Manafort called Trump ’ s chief of staff , Reince Priebus , to push back against the mounting controversy , according to four people familiar with the call .
It was about a week before Trump ’ s inauguration , and Manafort wanted to brief Trump ’ s team on alleged inaccuracies in a recently released dossier of memos written by a former British spy for Trump ’ s opponents that alleged compromising ties among Russia , Trump and Trump ’ s associates , including Manafort .
“ On the day that the dossier came out in the press , Paul called Reince , as a responsible ally of the president would do , and said this story about me is garbage , and a bunch of the other stuff in there seems implausible , ” said a person close to Manafort .
Manafort had been forced to resign as Trump ’ s campaign chairman five months earlier amid scrutiny of his work for Kremlin-aligned politicians and businessmen in Eastern Europe . But he had continued talking to various members of Trump ’ s team and had even had at least two conversations with Trump , according to people close to Manafort or Trump .
While the people say the conversations were mostly of a political or , in some cases , personal nature , the conversation with Priebus , described by the four people familiar with it , was related to the scandal now consuming Manafort and the Trump presidency .
It suggests that Manafort recognized months ago the potentially serious problems posed by the investigation , even as Trump himself continues to publicly dismiss it as a politically motivated witch hunt while predicting it won ’ t find anything compromising .
The discussion also could provide fodder for an expanding line of inquiry for both the FBI and congressional investigators . They ’ ve increasingly focused on the Trump team ’ s handling of the investigations , including evolving explanations from the White House , and the president ’ s unsuccessful efforts to get the FBI to drop part of the investigation , followed by his firing of FBI Director James Comey . All that has led to claims that the president and his team may have opened themselves to obstruction of justice charges .
███ Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the # 1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply .
According to a GOP operative familiar with Manafort ’ s conversation with Priebus , Manafort suggested the errors in the dossier discredited it , as well as the FBI investigation , since the bureau had reached a tentative ( but later aborted ) agreement to pay the former British spy to continue his research and had briefed both Trump and then-President Barack Obama on the dossier .
Manafort told Priebus that the dossier was tainted by inaccuracies and by the motivations of the people who initiated it , whom he alleged were Democratic activists and donors working in cahoots with Ukrainian government officials , according to the operative .
Manafort discussed with other Trump allies the possibility of launching a countervailing investigation into efforts by Ukrainian government officials who allegedly worked in conjunction with allies of Trump ’ s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to damage Trump ’ s campaign , according to the operative . The operative added that Manafort saw such an investigation as a way to distract attention from the parallel FBI and congressional Russia probes .
Priebus and the White House press office declined to comment , as did the Ukrainian presidential administration , though it previously challenged the notion it meddled in the U.S. presidential election .
Priebus did , however , alert Trump to the conversation with Manafort , according to the operative familiar with the conversation and a person close to Trump .
But someone else familiar with the call described it as “ a very vague topline discussion ” that lasted two or three minutes and was short on details . “ The only thing discussed was that the dossier was incorrect , full of lies , and was a joke . They never discussed ways to push back on it , ” the person said . “ Manafort said if you want any additional details , give me a call , and Reince never called him back . ”
There ’ s no evidence that Trump ’ s team considered an investigation into Ukrainian meddling or acted on Manafort ’ s recommendations , though Trump did blast the dossier as “ fake news ” gathered by “ a group of opponents that got together — sick people — and they put that crap together . ”
But Manafort , a 68-year-old veteran of five U.S. presidential elections and many overseas campaigns , has emerged as a focal point in the escalating investigations . His representatives say he is cooperating with investigators . This month , he voluntarily provided documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee , while also offering to be interviewed by the House and Senate intelligence committees .
Meanwhile , a federal grand jury empaneled as part of the FBI ’ s investigation reportedly has issued a subpoena for records related to Manafort , as well as Trump ’ s former national security adviser , Michael Flynn .
In addition to Manafort and Flynn , others being scrutinized in the various investigations include occasional Trump confidant ( and former Manafort business partner ) Roger Stone and former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page , who had only a fleeting association with the campaign .
Of that quartet , though , Manafort has by far the deepest — and most lucrative — connections to politicians , parties and businessmen associated with Russia whose president , Vladimir Putin , is reported to have personally overseen his country ’ s efforts to meddle in the U.S. presidential election to boost Trump .
Manafort was paid millions of dollars for work on behalf of oligarchs from Ukraine and Russia , as well as Russia-aligned Ukrainian political parties , including one helmed by former Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych . He fled Ukraine for Russia in 2014 amid street protests over government corruption and a pivot away from the European Union .
The New York Times in August revealed that the FBI and Ukrainian investigators were looking into a recently unearthed ledger detailing alleged off-the-books payments to Manafort by Yanukovych ’ s party totaling $ 12.7 million .
Manafort was forced to resign from the campaign less than a week after the story .
He has defended his work for Yanukovych as fully aboveboard and consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives , as well as completely distinct from his work for Trump ( though the Times reported Wednesday evening that top Russian officials discussed “ leveraging ” their ties to Yanukovych to exert influence over Manafort ) . Manafort also has questioned the authenticity of the ledger .
The dossier , prepared by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele , claims that the day after the Times ’ report on the ledger , Yanukovych secretly met with Putin near Volgograd , Russia , to discuss the matter .
“ Yanukovych had confided in Putin that he did authorise and order substantial kick-back payments to Manafort as alleged but sought to reassure him that there was no documentary trail left behind which could provide clear evidence of this , ” one memo in the dossier claims . The memo continues that “ Putin and others in the Russian leadership were sceptical [ sic ] about the ex-Ukrainian president 's reassurances on this . ”
After the dossier ’ s publication by BuzzFeed in January , Manafort in his conversation with Priebus challenged the dossier ’ s characterization of the payments from Yanukovych , according to the operative familiar with the conversation .
In conversations with other associates , Manafort singled out the dossier ’ s use of the term “ kickback , ” explaining “ Yanukovych would never use that term , ” according to the operative . Additionally , Manafort questioned whether any of Steele ’ s sources would be in position to know the contents of a meeting between Putin and Yanukovych . “ This stuff would never see light of the day , ” Manafort told the associates , according to the operative .
In his conversation with Priebus , Manafort also disputed the assertion in the Steele dossier that Manafort managed relations between Trump ’ s team and the Russian leadership , using Page and others as intermediaries .
Manafort told Priebus that he ’ d never met Page , according to the operative .
Manafort has said he severed ties with Yanukovych when he fled Ukraine . But Manafort continued advising the successor party to Yanukovych ’ s through late 2015 .
And two operatives familiar with his work in Eastern Europe say he remained in contact during Trump ’ s presidency with associates in Ukraine , including one who is widely believed to have a background in Russian intelligence .
Trump ’ s aides now say privately that the campaign wasn ’ t fully aware of the extent of Manafort ’ s connections to Russia-linked figures and entities when he was brought on board .
And White House aides and allies express mounting frustration that Manafort ’ s past work in Eastern Europe — which they see as entirely unrelated to his work on the Trump campaign — is dogging Trump ’ s presidency .
“ His problems are his problems . They would have existed independent of the campaign , ” said someone who worked on the Trump campaign with Manafort .
Trump ’ s aides and allies have sought to minimize Manafort ’ s role on the campaign , with White House press secretary Sean Spicer in March describing Manafort as someone “ who played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time ” in the effort .
The former Trump campaign worker said “ because Paul was initially brought on to secure the delegates and work with the establishment figures that the initial campaign team didn ’ t have relationships with , he was primarily based in New York , D.C. and then Cleveland setting up the convention . Whereas Mr. Trump and the core campaign team were traveling all over the country campaigning. ” As a result , the campaign hand said , “ we didn ’ t really have that much interaction with Paul . He wasn ’ t part of the core campaign team . ”
And the former campaign worker asserted that Trump and Manafort “ didn ’ t have a relationship ” before a mutual friend , California real estate investor Tom Barrack , recommended that Trump bring Manafort on board as a volunteer .
In fact , though , Manafort ’ s lobbying firm worked for Trump in the 1980s and 1990s fighting the expansion of Indian casinos that could compete with his Atlantic City gambling business , and trying to change the flight path of planes that Trump said disturbed guests at his newly purchased Mar-a-Lago club in Florida .
And , while it ’ s true that Manafort joined the campaign in March 2016 to handle delegate strategy , he quickly exerted his influence over the entire campaign , which was headquartered at Manhattan ’ s Trump Tower , where he owns an apartment .
Days after Manafort joined the campaign , one of his daughters , in a text message to her sister that was later hacked and posted in an online data tranche , wrote : “ Dad and Trump are literally living in the same building and mom says they go up and down all day long hanging and plotting together . ”
Manafort eventually forced out his internal rival , campaign manager Corey Lewandowski , in June , leaving Manafort with almost complete control over the operation for two months until August , when he was layered over , and then forced to resign .
Even after that , Manafort continued discussing campaign strategy with people on the campaign , including a few calls with Trump ’ s influential son-in-law , Jared Kushner , and more regular contact with key state directors , according to a Trump campaign consultant .
Manafort was spotted in the part of the Trump Tower lobby that led to Trump ’ s transition headquarters in the weeks after Trump ’ s victory , though a source close to Manafort suggested he may have been coming from or going to his apartment , as opposed to meeting with anyone on the transition team .
Likewise , there is some confusion about whether Manafort has spoken to Trump since he was sworn in as president .
Three Manafort associates said he indicated that he spoke to the president periodically until the Russia investigation started heating up about two months ago . But two sources close to Trump said there haven ’ t been any conversations at all since the inauguration .
One Manafort friend said Manafort had been offering Trump “ general political input , just like he still talks to Corey [ Lewandowski ] , and he still talks to Stone occasionally . Guys that he thinks are smart , he talks to . ”
The friend said “ Paul and Trump are still on good terms , ” and suggested that Manafort would be unlikely to turn on Trump to help himself . “ If he feels burned , it ’ s because of the trail of things he ’ s left behind over time , not because of anything Trump did , ” the friend said . “ He still pulls for him and wants to help him . ”
|
Months after the FBI began examining Paul Manafort as part of a probe into ties between President Donald Trump’s team and Russia, Manafort called Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, to push back against the mounting controversy, according to four people familiar with the call.
It was about a week before Trump’s inauguration, and Manafort wanted to brief Trump’s team on alleged inaccuracies in a recently released dossier of memos written by a former British spy for Trump’s opponents that alleged compromising ties among Russia, Trump and Trump’s associates, including Manafort.
Story Continued Below
“On the day that the dossier came out in the press, Paul called Reince, as a responsible ally of the president would do, and said this story about me is garbage, and a bunch of the other stuff in there seems implausible,” said a person close to Manafort.
Manafort had been forced to resign as Trump’s campaign chairman five months earlier amid scrutiny of his work for Kremlin-aligned politicians and businessmen in Eastern Europe. But he had continued talking to various members of Trump’s team and had even had at least two conversations with Trump, according to people close to Manafort or Trump.
While the people say the conversations were mostly of a political or, in some cases, personal nature, the conversation with Priebus, described by the four people familiar with it, was related to the scandal now consuming Manafort and the Trump presidency.
It suggests that Manafort recognized months ago the potentially serious problems posed by the investigation, even as Trump himself continues to publicly dismiss it as a politically motivated witch hunt while predicting it won’t find anything compromising.
The discussion also could provide fodder for an expanding line of inquiry for both the FBI and congressional investigators. They’ve increasingly focused on the Trump team’s handling of the investigations, including evolving explanations from the White House, and the president’s unsuccessful efforts to get the FBI to drop part of the investigation, followed by his firing of FBI Director James Comey. All that has led to claims that the president and his team may have opened themselves to obstruction of justice charges.
POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
According to a GOP operative familiar with Manafort’s conversation with Priebus, Manafort suggested the errors in the dossier discredited it, as well as the FBI investigation, since the bureau had reached a tentative (but later aborted) agreement to pay the former British spy to continue his research and had briefed both Trump and then-President Barack Obama on the dossier.
Manafort told Priebus that the dossier was tainted by inaccuracies and by the motivations of the people who initiated it, whom he alleged were Democratic activists and donors working in cahoots with Ukrainian government officials, according to the operative.
Manafort discussed with other Trump allies the possibility of launching a countervailing investigation into efforts by Ukrainian government officials who allegedly worked in conjunction with allies of Trump’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to damage Trump’s campaign, according to the operative. The operative added that Manafort saw such an investigation as a way to distract attention from the parallel FBI and congressional Russia probes.
Priebus and the White House press office declined to comment, as did the Ukrainian presidential administration, though it previously challenged the notion it meddled in the U.S. presidential election.
Priebus did, however, alert Trump to the conversation with Manafort, according to the operative familiar with the conversation and a person close to Trump.
But someone else familiar with the call described it as “a very vague topline discussion” that lasted two or three minutes and was short on details. “The only thing discussed was that the dossier was incorrect, full of lies, and was a joke. They never discussed ways to push back on it,” the person said. “Manafort said if you want any additional details, give me a call, and Reince never called him back.”
There’s no evidence that Trump’s team considered an investigation into Ukrainian meddling or acted on Manafort’s recommendations, though Trump did blast the dossier as “fake news” gathered by “a group of opponents that got together — sick people — and they put that crap together.”
A Manafort spokesman declined to comment for this story.
But Manafort, a 68-year-old veteran of five U.S. presidential elections and many overseas campaigns, has emerged as a focal point in the escalating investigations. His representatives say he is cooperating with investigators. This month, he voluntarily provided documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee, while also offering to be interviewed by the House and Senate intelligence committees.
Meanwhile, a federal grand jury empaneled as part of the FBI’s investigation reportedly has issued a subpoena for records related to Manafort, as well as Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn.
In addition to Manafort and Flynn, others being scrutinized in the various investigations include occasional Trump confidant (and former Manafort business partner) Roger Stone and former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page, who had only a fleeting association with the campaign.
Of that quartet, though, Manafort has by far the deepest — and most lucrative — connections to politicians, parties and businessmen associated with Russia whose president, Vladimir Putin, is reported to have personally overseen his country’s efforts to meddle in the U.S. presidential election to boost Trump.
Manafort was paid millions of dollars for work on behalf of oligarchs from Ukraine and Russia, as well as Russia-aligned Ukrainian political parties, including one helmed by former Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. He fled Ukraine for Russia in 2014 amid street protests over government corruption and a pivot away from the European Union.
The New York Times in August revealed that the FBI and Ukrainian investigators were looking into a recently unearthed ledger detailing alleged off-the-books payments to Manafort by Yanukovych’s party totaling $12.7 million.
Manafort was forced to resign from the campaign less than a week after the story.
He has defended his work for Yanukovych as fully aboveboard and consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives, as well as completely distinct from his work for Trump (though the Times reported Wednesday evening that top Russian officials discussed “leveraging” their ties to Yanukovych to exert influence over Manafort). Manafort also has questioned the authenticity of the ledger.
The dossier, prepared by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele, claims that the day after the Times’ report on the ledger, Yanukovych secretly met with Putin near Volgograd, Russia, to discuss the matter.
“Yanukovych had confided in Putin that he did authorise and order substantial kick-back payments to Manafort as alleged but sought to reassure him that there was no documentary trail left behind which could provide clear evidence of this,” one memo in the dossier claims. The memo continues that “Putin and others in the Russian leadership were sceptical [sic] about the ex-Ukrainian president's reassurances on this.”
After the dossier’s publication by BuzzFeed in January, Manafort in his conversation with Priebus challenged the dossier’s characterization of the payments from Yanukovych, according to the operative familiar with the conversation.
In conversations with other associates, Manafort singled out the dossier’s use of the term “kickback,” explaining “Yanukovych would never use that term,” according to the operative. Additionally, Manafort questioned whether any of Steele’s sources would be in position to know the contents of a meeting between Putin and Yanukovych. “This stuff would never see light of the day,” Manafort told the associates, according to the operative.
In his conversation with Priebus, Manafort also disputed the assertion in the Steele dossier that Manafort managed relations between Trump’s team and the Russian leadership, using Page and others as intermediaries.
Manafort told Priebus that he’d never met Page, according to the operative.
Manafort has said he severed ties with Yanukovych when he fled Ukraine. But Manafort continued advising the successor party to Yanukovych’s through late 2015.
And two operatives familiar with his work in Eastern Europe say he remained in contact during Trump’s presidency with associates in Ukraine, including one who is widely believed to have a background in Russian intelligence.
Trump’s aides now say privately that the campaign wasn’t fully aware of the extent of Manafort’s connections to Russia-linked figures and entities when he was brought on board.
And White House aides and allies express mounting frustration that Manafort’s past work in Eastern Europe — which they see as entirely unrelated to his work on the Trump campaign — is dogging Trump’s presidency.
“His problems are his problems. They would have existed independent of the campaign,” said someone who worked on the Trump campaign with Manafort.
Trump’s aides and allies have sought to minimize Manafort’s role on the campaign, with White House press secretary Sean Spicer in March describing Manafort as someone “who played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time” in the effort.
The former Trump campaign worker said “because Paul was initially brought on to secure the delegates and work with the establishment figures that the initial campaign team didn’t have relationships with, he was primarily based in New York, D.C. and then Cleveland setting up the convention. Whereas Mr. Trump and the core campaign team were traveling all over the country campaigning.” As a result, the campaign hand said, “we didn’t really have that much interaction with Paul. He wasn’t part of the core campaign team.”
And the former campaign worker asserted that Trump and Manafort “didn’t have a relationship” before a mutual friend, California real estate investor Tom Barrack, recommended that Trump bring Manafort on board as a volunteer.
In fact, though, Manafort’s lobbying firm worked for Trump in the 1980s and 1990s fighting the expansion of Indian casinos that could compete with his Atlantic City gambling business, and trying to change the flight path of planes that Trump said disturbed guests at his newly purchased Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.
And, while it’s true that Manafort joined the campaign in March 2016 to handle delegate strategy, he quickly exerted his influence over the entire campaign, which was headquartered at Manhattan’s Trump Tower, where he owns an apartment.
Days after Manafort joined the campaign, one of his daughters, in a text message to her sister that was later hacked and posted in an online data tranche, wrote: “Dad and Trump are literally living in the same building and mom says they go up and down all day long hanging and plotting together.”
Manafort eventually forced out his internal rival, campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, in June, leaving Manafort with almost complete control over the operation for two months until August, when he was layered over, and then forced to resign.
Even after that, Manafort continued discussing campaign strategy with people on the campaign, including a few calls with Trump’s influential son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and more regular contact with key state directors, according to a Trump campaign consultant.
Manafort was spotted in the part of the Trump Tower lobby that led to Trump’s transition headquarters in the weeks after Trump’s victory, though a source close to Manafort suggested he may have been coming from or going to his apartment, as opposed to meeting with anyone on the transition team.
Likewise, there is some confusion about whether Manafort has spoken to Trump since he was sworn in as president.
Three Manafort associates said he indicated that he spoke to the president periodically until the Russia investigation started heating up about two months ago. But two sources close to Trump said there haven’t been any conversations at all since the inauguration.
One Manafort friend said Manafort had been offering Trump “general political input, just like he still talks to Corey [Lewandowski], and he still talks to Stone occasionally. Guys that he thinks are smart, he talks to.”
The friend said “Paul and Trump are still on good terms,” and suggested that Manafort would be unlikely to turn on Trump to help himself. “If he feels burned, it’s because of the trail of things he’s left behind over time, not because of anything Trump did,” the friend said. “He still pulls for him and wants to help him.”
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
hj8EWVP8JQC1qIT6
|
middle_east
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/middleeast/egypt.html?hp&_r=0
|
Egyptian Court Is Said to Order That Mubarak Be Released
|
2013-08-20
|
David D. Kirkpatrick
|
Judges have dismissed many charges originally brought against Mr. Mubarak , including directing the killing of protesters . But the previous post-Mubarak governments always made clear that they would keep finding new allegations to keep the former leader behind bars . The council of generals that succeeded Mr. Mubarak was too desperate to placate the public and preserve its own legitimacy to release him , and Mr. Morsi campaigned on promises to keep him locked up .
But the Sisi government has no such insecurity about its power , or hostility to Mr. Mubarak . Some members of political factions that had previously joined rallies for Mr. Mubarak ’ s incarceration , or even execution , said they believed the public did not care so much anymore .
“ I don ’ t think people are paying the slightest attention , ” said Hussein Gohar , a spokesman for the Social Democratic Party . “ And if it happens , it will not have anything close to the impact it would have had a year ago , ” he said of Mr. Mubarak ’ s release , in part “ because people have moved on ” and in part “ because of the paradigm shift to support for the army . ”
Besides , Mr. Gohar said , he did not think the new military-backed authorities would allow massive protests against Mr. Mubarak , once an Air Force general . “ At the end of the day , Mubarak is part of the military , ” Mr. Gohar said . “ He is one of them . ”
The interim government bears other resemblances to the Mubarak government . General Sisi , the defense minister , was Mr. Mubarak ’ s head of military intelligence . The figurehead president , Adli Mansour , a judge , was appointed to a top court under Mr. Mubarak . The interior minister was a high-ranking official under Mr. Mubarak . The foreign minister is a senior ambassador who served in Washington . The finance minister is an economist who worked closely with Mr. Mubarak ’ s son and designated successor , Gamal , who became a senior figure in the old ruling party . And the justice minister is another judge appointed to a top court under Mr. Mubarak .
But many pointed to crucial differences between now and the Mubarak era .
Mr. Gohar of the Social Democrats said the revolution had inculcated a new demand for participation and accountability that would prevent a return to the old order . “ There is still a deep state , of course , but you can not go back , ” he said , adding that continued pro-Morsi protests demonstrated Egyptians ’ new assertiveness . “ People are not going to be passive anymore and just accept what is handed to them by the government . ”
Mr. Bahgat argued that General Sisi ’ s government might rely on the same people , institutions and tactics that Mr. Mubarak did , but said it was a new authoritarianism , not a restoration . This time , he said , there is a much greater emphasis on “ the propaganda machine , ” suggesting that attention to public opinion may be the main legacy of the 2011 revolt .
Many analysts say that whatever its inclinations , the government is unlikely to risk even a small public backlash at this volatile moment by releasing Mr. Mubarak . If it does not , his continued incarceration opens the intriguing possibility that he and Mr. Morsi , now detained at an unknown location , might end up in jail together . Mr. Morsi is no stranger to jail : he was there as a political prisoner just before Mr. Mubarak ’ s ouster .
|
Judges have dismissed many charges originally brought against Mr. Mubarak, including directing the killing of protesters. But the previous post-Mubarak governments always made clear that they would keep finding new allegations to keep the former leader behind bars. The council of generals that succeeded Mr. Mubarak was too desperate to placate the public and preserve its own legitimacy to release him, and Mr. Morsi campaigned on promises to keep him locked up.
But the Sisi government has no such insecurity about its power, or hostility to Mr. Mubarak. Some members of political factions that had previously joined rallies for Mr. Mubarak’s incarceration, or even execution, said they believed the public did not care so much anymore.
“I don’t think people are paying the slightest attention,” said Hussein Gohar, a spokesman for the Social Democratic Party. “And if it happens, it will not have anything close to the impact it would have had a year ago,” he said of Mr. Mubarak’s release, in part “because people have moved on” and in part “because of the paradigm shift to support for the army.”
Besides, Mr. Gohar said, he did not think the new military-backed authorities would allow massive protests against Mr. Mubarak, once an Air Force general. “At the end of the day, Mubarak is part of the military,” Mr. Gohar said. “He is one of them.”
The interim government bears other resemblances to the Mubarak government. General Sisi, the defense minister, was Mr. Mubarak’s head of military intelligence. The figurehead president, Adli Mansour, a judge, was appointed to a top court under Mr. Mubarak. The interior minister was a high-ranking official under Mr. Mubarak. The foreign minister is a senior ambassador who served in Washington. The finance minister is an economist who worked closely with Mr. Mubarak’s son and designated successor, Gamal, who became a senior figure in the old ruling party. And the justice minister is another judge appointed to a top court under Mr. Mubarak.
But many pointed to crucial differences between now and the Mubarak era.
Mr. Gohar of the Social Democrats said the revolution had inculcated a new demand for participation and accountability that would prevent a return to the old order. “There is still a deep state, of course, but you cannot go back,” he said, adding that continued pro-Morsi protests demonstrated Egyptians’ new assertiveness. “People are not going to be passive anymore and just accept what is handed to them by the government.”
Mr. Bahgat argued that General Sisi’s government might rely on the same people, institutions and tactics that Mr. Mubarak did, but said it was a new authoritarianism, not a restoration. This time, he said, there is a much greater emphasis on “the propaganda machine,” suggesting that attention to public opinion may be the main legacy of the 2011 revolt.
Many analysts say that whatever its inclinations, the government is unlikely to risk even a small public backlash at this volatile moment by releasing Mr. Mubarak. If it does not, his continued incarceration opens the intriguing possibility that he and Mr. Morsi, now detained at an unknown location, might end up in jail together. Mr. Morsi is no stranger to jail: he was there as a political prisoner just before Mr. Mubarak’s ouster.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
KpCbApFhuPB1VbRC
|
national_security
|
Vox
| 00
|
https://www.vox.com/2017/6/8/15761756/comey-testimony-senate-hearing-trump
|
3 winners and 3 losers from James Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee
|
2017-06-08
|
Dara Lind, Rebecca Jennings, Hannah Brown, Lauren Katz, Theodore Schleifer, Li Zhou, Sean Collins
|
The nature of the events that led ex-FBI Director James Comey to testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Thursday are extraordinary . Comey ’ s testimony of his version of events was even more so .
Starting with Comey ’ s sudden firing on May 9 , events have been unfolding since then , with near-daily scoops about the interactions between Trump and Comey and the campaigns connections to Russia — it has been a wild ride up until this point . Most of what we knew before Thursday has come in bits and pieces . Journalists outside the White House ( and the public ) have struggled to put together scraps from anonymous sources , often only revealing a little information at a time .
Comey ’ s prepared testimony , released Wednesday afternoon , gave the public a narrative : that President Donald Trump consistently either failed to understand or intentionally violated the norms of independence that set the FBI out of political reach . Comey ’ s testimony Thursday presented a reliable narrator for that story . And the dogged questioning from Democrats — and , often , Republicans — made for high drama that drew its power not from partisan confrontation , but from the excitement of finding out the truth .
The political fight over Comey ’ s firing , and the broader Russia scandal , is ongoing . Here ’ s who came out of Thursday ’ s hearing in a stronger position — and who saw themselves undermined .
The clip that sums up Thursday ’ s hearing isn ’ t actually from the hearing at all . It ’ s from the moments before the hearing , as a low-grade hurricane of Senate business swirled around an implacable Comey at its eye .
That image — an unruffled professional , speaking on behalf of no one but himself and prompted by nothing but his own sense of right and wrong — is the one Comey projected throughout the hearing . It was a masterful performance .
Comey presented himself as a career government man who knew enough not to trust a strange new president already surrounded by scandal , but who nonetheless deferred to him , as president , up to the point where doing so would violate the law — and whose primary concern , even then , was to protect the investigation rather than to cause trouble he saw as unnecessary with the president .
In doing so , he made himself extremely hard to impugn . Even his toughest Republican questioners were forced to acknowledge his basic integrity , and take the gravity of his claims at least somewhat seriously . ( One of the president ’ s most vociferous defenders , Sen. John Cornyn , ended up arguing that the president wasn ’ t guilty of obstructing justice because Comey disobeyed his request to drop the investigation into former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn . )
He won ’ t remain above the fray forever . Some of his answers about why he didn ’ t do more , at the time , to raise alarms about the president ’ s behavior aren ’ t likely to satisfy Republicans , and it ’ s likely they ’ ll paint him as a disgruntled ex-employee smearing his former boss ( or as a “ deep-state ” mole opposed to Trump from the beginning ) .
But while his admission that “ I could have been stronger ” in pushing back against Trump in the moment might be a political liability for him , it rang true . It confirmed , as much as anyone has ever confirmed on the record , something that many people assume is true but few can prove : that this president is fundamentally not normal , that he fundamentally will not play by the rules that protect the integrity of his office and the government .
Faced with such a boss , we all think we ’ d be the first to blow the whistle . But many of us wouldn ’ t . Jim Comey simply admitted to it .
Remember in the days before the election , when liberals were all worried that the FBI ’ s support for Trump had corrupted the agency ’ s law enforcement capabilities ?
The FBI was never the most likely agency for critics of Trump to look to as the “ resistance ” within the federal government . But the president ’ s unseemly interest in the Russia investigation appears to have set them on edge — and firing their director only made the problem worse .
Comey made an impassioned case for the independence and professionalism of his former agency before the committee . “ There is no one indispensable person , ” he said in the hearing ’ s biggest humblebrag ; the work of investigating the Trump campaign will continue .
The idea of the FBI as a bastion of integrity within the federal government isn ’ t just amusing because of the agency ’ s history ( the shadow of J. Edgar Hoover still looms large , to the point where the founding director was mentioned in passing on Thursday as an example of inappropriate power over a president ) . It ’ s fascinating because , as recently as last fall , it really looked like the political persuasion of the agency ’ s field officers were going to undermine its commitment to investigating wrongdoing .
Instead , though , it appears that many FBI agents who had supported Trump are putting their agency over their party . They may not be as noble as Comey made them look Thursday , but they ’ re certainly looking better than one might have expected .
You might be surprised to hear this , but senators like to hear themselves talk . They like to hear themselves talk on television and in the halls of Congress . If the members of the intelligence committee had used the opportunity of a televised committee hearing to grandstand about how terrible Trump was ( or how terrible the media was ) for seven minutes at a time , barely letting Comey get a word in edgewise , it would have made for deadly viewing .
That wasn ’ t what happened . Members of both parties managed to restrain themselves from pontificating about what they thought the problem was ( with the exception of a little bit of Russia-bashing from ranking member Sen. Mark Warner ( D-VA ) ) . And members of both parties , but particularly Democrats , made a point of sticking to questions either that Comey could answer , or that his refusal or inability to discuss would be an answer of a different kind .
Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-OR ) is a veteran of this kind of questioning . As one of the Senate ’ s leading critics of government surveillance , he ’ s well-trained in the art of asking a witness a question he knows the witness can ’ t answer publicly , as a way of flagging for the public that there is something of interest being kept from them .
On Thursday , he used those skills to extract one of the few genuinely new pieces of information from the hearing : that Comey had a reason , beyond what ’ s publicly been reported , to believe that Jeff Sessions would need to recuse himself from the Russia investigation .
Wyden wasn ’ t flashy . He wasn ’ t outraged . He simply moved the ball forward in the investigation and let Comey be the star of the show . And his colleagues followed suit .
Democrats in Congress have been in a tricky position under Trump — and not just because they ’ re the minority party . They ’ re torn between a need to uphold the government ( by helping Republicans keep it funded , and adhering to its norms ) and a desire to please a base who sees this president as fundamentally illegitimate or downright monstrous .
Thursday ’ s hearing showed that Democrats don ’ t need to stamp their feet and gnash their teeth and wear pussy hats on the floor of the Senate to demonstrate effective opposition . They can simply show a commitment to finding the truth , and a confidence that the truth will not — as the truth so far has not — make the Trump administration look very good .
Here are things said about the president of the United States by the former FBI director :
“ The nature of the person — I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document . ”
“ The administration then chose to defame me and , more importantly , the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray , that it was poorly led , that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader . Those were lies , plain and simple . ”
“ I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took it in . ”
There ’ s more where this came from . Nothing James Comey said about Donald Trump Thursday inspired any confidence in the leadership of the president .
The only ambiguity , which Republicans are trying to seize on , to questionable benefit , is if the president was actively trying to undermine the rule of law by running the federal government like a family business , or if the man with his finger on the nuclear button is so astoundingly ignorant and badly advised that he just has no idea how anything works and needs remedial lessons — that his own White House hasn ’ t given him — in things like the fundamental independence of the FBI .
Both of those are terrifying possibilities . Both are bad for democracy and bad for the rule of law .
The best thing you can say about the president , coming out of today ’ s hearing , is that he didn ’ t make it worse for himself with aggrieved live-tweeting . But he can ’ t sustain silence forever — and if everything Trump ’ s done up to this point is any indication , he ’ s going to have a tough time sticking to his agenda when there ’ s an insult out there he wants to rebut .
The question isn ’ t whether Donald Trump will respond to James Comey in a way that makes Trump look bad . It ’ s when .
The most tantalizing hint Comey dropped Thursday wasn ’ t about Trump . It was about Attorney General Jeff Sessions .
Comey said that he expected Sessions to recuse himself from the Russia investigation even before Sessions officially did so . Under questioning from Wyden , he admitted that he hadn ’ t just made that assumption based on what was publicly known about the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak meeting , but based on something else he ’ d known — but he wouldn ’ t publicly say what that thing was ( emphasis added ) :
Our judgment , as I recall , is that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons . We also were aware of facts that I ca n't discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic . So we were convinced — in fact , I think we 'd already heard that the career people were recommending that he recuse himself , that he was not going to be in contact with Russia-related matters much longer .
It ’ s not clear what Comey is referring to . It ’ s possible that he ’ s referring to a second meeting between Sessions and Kislyak during the campaign , reported by CNN at the end of May but not yet officially confirmed . ( Having two meetings , and failing to admit to either of them during your confirmation , is a bigger sign of deliberate intent to mislead than just leaving one off . ) It ’ s also possible that Sessions had some other contact with Russia that hasn ’ t yet been reported . Or maybe Comey was referring to something else entirely .
Sessions has been the most unexpected member of the Trump administration to get caught up in the Russia scandal — unlike Trump or many of the president ’ s other advisers , he ’ s a career politician . He ’ s already on the outs with the president for things that aren ’ t related to Russia ( although the president is always on the outs with someone in his White House ) . But more public scrutiny is probably the last thing he needs , especially regarding the Comey firing saga , which Thursday ’ s testimony ensures isn ’ t going away anytime soon .
Let ’ s start with this tweet , sent Wednesday by the official Twitter account of the Republican National Committee after the written copy of Comey ’ s prepared testimony had been printed online . It is a bad tweet .
Trying to find something of substance in Comey ’ s opening statement like pic.twitter.com/igLC4JPREg — GOP ( @ GOP ) June 7 , 2017
It ’ s not just a bad tweet because it ’ s such an unforced error ( why did they feel the need to tweet anything at all ? ) , or because the only reason that Comey ’ s opening statement didn ’ t feel revelatory is because much of it had been reported previously in scoops that many Republicans had dismissed as “ fake news . ”
It ’ s a bad tweet because the combination of the GIF ’ s Western setting ( it ’ s from the recent remake of The Magnificent Seven ) and the text evoke the HBO show Westworld — where robots , programmed to believe they live in the Wild West , respond to any sign of the modern world with a blank stare and a “ It doesn ’ t look like anything to me . ”
“ It doesn ’ t look like anything to me ” is the GOP ’ s pre-programmed response to any new sign of wrongdoing by President Trump or his administration . And some of them have been using it so readily for so long that it seems they ’ ve lost any ability to actually see the information amassed in front of them — much less to draw a line at which , should Trump cross it , they ’ d be forced to stand up to him .
This is forcing them into uncomfortable positions — Speaker of the House Paul Ryan found himself excusing the president as “ new to this ” as a way of saying he hadn ’ t knowingly screwed up , which is just not something you want to say about your commander-in-chief . But it also means that they have blinded themselves with loyalty to a man who isn ’ t loyal to them .
Donald Trump puts himself before his party . He puts himself before his own administration — he was willing to see “ satellites ” brought up on charges in the Russia investigation as long as he was publicly known not to have been within its scope . If there is a way that Trump can get out of this by undermining Republicans , he will do it . But now , while they are the ones with the power to undermine him , they won ’ t .
|
It was political theater of the best kind.
The nature of the events that led ex-FBI Director James Comey to testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Thursday are extraordinary. Comey’s testimony of his version of events was even more so.
Starting with Comey’s sudden firing on May 9, events have been unfolding since then, with near-daily scoops about the interactions between Trump and Comey and the campaigns connections to Russia — it has been a wild ride up until this point. Most of what we knew before Thursday has come in bits and pieces. Journalists outside the White House (and the public) have struggled to put together scraps from anonymous sources, often only revealing a little information at a time.
Comey’s prepared testimony, released Wednesday afternoon, gave the public a narrative: that President Donald Trump consistently either failed to understand or intentionally violated the norms of independence that set the FBI out of political reach. Comey’s testimony Thursday presented a reliable narrator for that story. And the dogged questioning from Democrats — and, often, Republicans — made for high drama that drew its power not from partisan confrontation, but from the excitement of finding out the truth.
The political fight over Comey’s firing, and the broader Russia scandal, is ongoing. Here’s who came out of Thursday’s hearing in a stronger position — and who saw themselves undermined.
Winner: James Comey
The clip that sums up Thursday’s hearing isn’t actually from the hearing at all. It’s from the moments before the hearing, as a low-grade hurricane of Senate business swirled around an implacable Comey at its eye.
That image — an unruffled professional, speaking on behalf of no one but himself and prompted by nothing but his own sense of right and wrong — is the one Comey projected throughout the hearing. It was a masterful performance.
Comey presented himself as a career government man who knew enough not to trust a strange new president already surrounded by scandal, but who nonetheless deferred to him, as president, up to the point where doing so would violate the law — and whose primary concern, even then, was to protect the investigation rather than to cause trouble he saw as unnecessary with the president.
In doing so, he made himself extremely hard to impugn. Even his toughest Republican questioners were forced to acknowledge his basic integrity, and take the gravity of his claims at least somewhat seriously. (One of the president’s most vociferous defenders, Sen. John Cornyn, ended up arguing that the president wasn’t guilty of obstructing justice because Comey disobeyed his request to drop the investigation into former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn.)
He won’t remain above the fray forever. Some of his answers about why he didn’t do more, at the time, to raise alarms about the president’s behavior aren’t likely to satisfy Republicans, and it’s likely they’ll paint him as a disgruntled ex-employee smearing his former boss (or as a “deep-state” mole opposed to Trump from the beginning).
But while his admission that “I could have been stronger” in pushing back against Trump in the moment might be a political liability for him, it rang true. It confirmed, as much as anyone has ever confirmed on the record, something that many people assume is true but few can prove: that this president is fundamentally not normal, that he fundamentally will not play by the rules that protect the integrity of his office and the government.
Faced with such a boss, we all think we’d be the first to blow the whistle. But many of us wouldn’t. Jim Comey simply admitted to it.
Winner: the FBI
Remember in the days before the election, when liberals were all worried that the FBI’s support for Trump had corrupted the agency’s law enforcement capabilities?
The FBI was never the most likely agency for critics of Trump to look to as the “resistance” within the federal government. But the president’s unseemly interest in the Russia investigation appears to have set them on edge — and firing their director only made the problem worse.
Comey made an impassioned case for the independence and professionalism of his former agency before the committee. “There is no one indispensable person,” he said in the hearing’s biggest humblebrag; the work of investigating the Trump campaign will continue.
The idea of the FBI as a bastion of integrity within the federal government isn’t just amusing because of the agency’s history (the shadow of J. Edgar Hoover still looms large, to the point where the founding director was mentioned in passing on Thursday as an example of inappropriate power over a president). It’s fascinating because, as recently as last fall, it really looked like the political persuasion of the agency’s field officers were going to undermine its commitment to investigating wrongdoing.
Instead, though, it appears that many FBI agents who had supported Trump are putting their agency over their party. They may not be as noble as Comey made them look Thursday, but they’re certainly looking better than one might have expected.
Winner: Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
You might be surprised to hear this, but senators like to hear themselves talk. They like to hear themselves talk on television and in the halls of Congress. If the members of the intelligence committee had used the opportunity of a televised committee hearing to grandstand about how terrible Trump was (or how terrible the media was) for seven minutes at a time, barely letting Comey get a word in edgewise, it would have made for deadly viewing.
That wasn’t what happened. Members of both parties managed to restrain themselves from pontificating about what they thought the problem was (with the exception of a little bit of Russia-bashing from ranking member Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)). And members of both parties, but particularly Democrats, made a point of sticking to questions either that Comey could answer, or that his refusal or inability to discuss would be an answer of a different kind.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is a veteran of this kind of questioning. As one of the Senate’s leading critics of government surveillance, he’s well-trained in the art of asking a witness a question he knows the witness can’t answer publicly, as a way of flagging for the public that there is something of interest being kept from them.
On Thursday, he used those skills to extract one of the few genuinely new pieces of information from the hearing: that Comey had a reason, beyond what’s publicly been reported, to believe that Jeff Sessions would need to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
Wyden wasn’t flashy. He wasn’t outraged. He simply moved the ball forward in the investigation and let Comey be the star of the show. And his colleagues followed suit.
Democrats in Congress have been in a tricky position under Trump — and not just because they’re the minority party. They’re torn between a need to uphold the government (by helping Republicans keep it funded, and adhering to its norms) and a desire to please a base who sees this president as fundamentally illegitimate or downright monstrous.
Thursday’s hearing showed that Democrats don’t need to stamp their feet and gnash their teeth and wear pussy hats on the floor of the Senate to demonstrate effective opposition. They can simply show a commitment to finding the truth, and a confidence that the truth will not — as the truth so far has not — make the Trump administration look very good.
Loser: Donald Trump
Here are things said about the president of the United States by the former FBI director:
“The nature of the person — I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document.”
“The administration then chose to defame me and, more importantly, the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple.”
“I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took it in.”
“Lordy, I hope there are tapes.”
There’s more where this came from. Nothing James Comey said about Donald Trump Thursday inspired any confidence in the leadership of the president.
The only ambiguity, which Republicans are trying to seize on, to questionable benefit, is if the president was actively trying to undermine the rule of law by running the federal government like a family business, or if the man with his finger on the nuclear button is so astoundingly ignorant and badly advised that he just has no idea how anything works and needs remedial lessons — that his own White House hasn’t given him — in things like the fundamental independence of the FBI.
Both of those are terrifying possibilities. Both are bad for democracy and bad for the rule of law.
The best thing you can say about the president, coming out of today’s hearing, is that he didn’t make it worse for himself with aggrieved live-tweeting. But he can’t sustain silence forever — and if everything Trump’s done up to this point is any indication, he’s going to have a tough time sticking to his agenda when there’s an insult out there he wants to rebut.
The question isn’t whether Donald Trump will respond to James Comey in a way that makes Trump look bad. It’s when.
Loser: Jeff Sessions
The most tantalizing hint Comey dropped Thursday wasn’t about Trump. It was about Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Comey said that he expected Sessions to recuse himself from the Russia investigation even before Sessions officially did so. Under questioning from Wyden, he admitted that he hadn’t just made that assumption based on what was publicly known about the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak meeting, but based on something else he’d known — but he wouldn’t publicly say what that thing was (emphasis added):
Our judgment, as I recall, is that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can't discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic. So we were convinced — in fact, I think we'd already heard that the career people were recommending that he recuse himself, that he was not going to be in contact with Russia-related matters much longer.
It’s not clear what Comey is referring to. It’s possible that he’s referring to a second meeting between Sessions and Kislyak during the campaign, reported by CNN at the end of May but not yet officially confirmed. (Having two meetings, and failing to admit to either of them during your confirmation, is a bigger sign of deliberate intent to mislead than just leaving one off.) It’s also possible that Sessions had some other contact with Russia that hasn’t yet been reported. Or maybe Comey was referring to something else entirely.
Sessions has been the most unexpected member of the Trump administration to get caught up in the Russia scandal — unlike Trump or many of the president’s other advisers, he’s a career politician. He’s already on the outs with the president for things that aren’t related to Russia (although the president is always on the outs with someone in his White House). But more public scrutiny is probably the last thing he needs, especially regarding the Comey firing saga, which Thursday’s testimony ensures isn’t going away anytime soon.
Loser: the Republican Party
Let’s start with this tweet, sent Wednesday by the official Twitter account of the Republican National Committee after the written copy of Comey’s prepared testimony had been printed online. It is a bad tweet.
Trying to find something of substance in Comey’s opening statement like pic.twitter.com/igLC4JPREg — GOP (@GOP) June 7, 2017
It’s not just a bad tweet because it’s such an unforced error (why did they feel the need to tweet anything at all?), or because the only reason that Comey’s opening statement didn’t feel revelatory is because much of it had been reported previously in scoops that many Republicans had dismissed as “fake news.”
It’s a bad tweet because the combination of the GIF’s Western setting (it’s from the recent remake of The Magnificent Seven) and the text evoke the HBO show Westworld — where robots, programmed to believe they live in the Wild West, respond to any sign of the modern world with a blank stare and a “It doesn’t look like anything to me.”
“It doesn’t look like anything to me” is the GOP’s pre-programmed response to any new sign of wrongdoing by President Trump or his administration. And some of them have been using it so readily for so long that it seems they’ve lost any ability to actually see the information amassed in front of them — much less to draw a line at which, should Trump cross it, they’d be forced to stand up to him.
This is forcing them into uncomfortable positions — Speaker of the House Paul Ryan found himself excusing the president as “new to this” as a way of saying he hadn’t knowingly screwed up, which is just not something you want to say about your commander-in-chief. But it also means that they have blinded themselves with loyalty to a man who isn’t loyal to them.
Donald Trump puts himself before his party. He puts himself before his own administration — he was willing to see “satellites” brought up on charges in the Russia investigation as long as he was publicly known not to have been within its scope. If there is a way that Trump can get out of this by undermining Republicans, he will do it. But now, while they are the ones with the power to undermine him, they won’t.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
oPSjwo1MLkLd3zaP
|
white_house
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/9/allard-duty-reveals-dereliction-at-the-obama-white/
|
ALLARD: ?Duty? reveals Obama?s dereliction
|
2014-01-09
|
Ken Allard
|
Though it has already been excerpted and sound-bitten to a fare-thee-well , there are several things to remember about “ Duty , ” the explosive memoir by former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates hitting bookstores around the world next week .
First , all memoirs are self-serving . As a book reviewer for several publications , including this newspaper , capital-based memoirs are notorious for settling old scores while justifying the author ’ s own far-seeing wisdom in every circumstance .
Second , memoirs are a partial historical snapshot — at best . No publisher in his right mind has any conceivable interest in objectivity or the verdict of history .
Controversy generates headlines , and headlines sell books . So any author unwilling to let fly is also unlikely to have his memoir published in the first place .
Those caveats aside , “ Duty ” is likely to be one of those rare books that define an era .
The reason : Mr. Gates , that famously discreet and consummate public servant for almost a half-century , decided at age 70 to let fly , finally content to cast stones and spread ripples wherever he threw them .
The inevitable effect is to confirm much of the criticism voiced in public and private by the most determined foes of President Obama ’ s leadership .
The usual network talking heads make much of Mr. Gates ‘ close working relationship with Mr. Obama , predictably emphasizing personality rather than structure .
By law , custom and practice , though , the president and his defense secretary are joined at the hip , a marriage of civilian control collectively known as the national command authority . That intimate relationship is the linchpin of the chain of command , extending from Washington to joint combatant commands around the globe .
The system ’ s object : the American soldier , sailor , aviator and Marine in their front-line fighting positions around the world .
Consequently , it is simply appalling when Mr. Gates reports that Mr. Obama was personally solicitous toward senior military commanders , but deeply suspicious of their motivations and agendas .
Excuse me , but if the president didn ’ t trust those commanders , then why not relieve them ?
Oh wait , he did that , didn ’ t he ? It was an ongoing purge of the generals that Stalin might have envied . At least now we know why : a seething stew of personal antipathy , amateurism and micromanagement at the highest level of command .
That overriding reality apparently shaped ambiguities outlined by other authors , but now confirmed by the former secretary of defense . Mr. Gates alleges that the president presided over White House meetings in 2011 in which he disrespected his commanders , doubted his allies and even questioned his own strategy about Afghanistan , where American combat troops had just been recommitted .
According to an account by Bob Woodward in the Jan. 7 edition of The Washington Post , Mr. Gates opined that Mr. Obama “ doesn ’ t consider the war to be his . For him , it ’ s all about getting out . ”
While some of the president ’ s defenders were quick to question the propriety of including such trusted and sensitive conversations in a published memoir , others wondered why Mr. Gates didn ’ t simply resign on the spot .
It ’ s a fair question , but the larger issue is the quality of Mr. Obama ’ s leadership . Even for a man schooled in community organizing rather military service , how could any president with even a modicum of conscience ask American troops to commit life and limb to a war that their supposed commander in chief rightly regarded as a highly dubious venture ?
Reading that highly excerpted passage , I was reminded of a poignant scene from the classic movie “ Jaws. ” The mother of a young boy killed by the marauding shark confronts the city official who failed to sound the alarm , slapping his face in mute outrage for his dereliction of duty .
If the president really had those misgivings about the wisdom of committing American sons and daughters to combat in a mountainous hellhole half a world away , then what became of those strong convictions he had always assured us he felt ?
If these were his true beliefs with regard to Afghanistan in 2011 , then did the same apply to Benghazi in 2012 and afterward ?
The White House and its usual media suspects have rallied around Obama insiders such as former National Security Adviser Tom Donilon , who was a “ disaster ” in the declared opinion of Mr. Gates .
The former defense secretary is equally scathing in criticizing that noted statesman Joseph Biden , glimpsed during the 2012 campaign debates attempting a troubling imitation of a sitting vice president .
Even more worrisome is Mr. Gates ‘ pithy confirmation of something many of us only suspected . “ I felt that agreements with the Obama White House were good for only as long as they were politically convenient . ”
From Watergate to the Obama White House , insider accounts are convincing and even invaluable when they tear away the great masks of public deception . Always performing his duty as a good servant to the nation , Robert M. Gates apparently has done just that .
Col. Ken Allard , retired from the Army , is a military analyst and author on national security issues .
|
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Though it has already been excerpted and sound-bitten to a fare-thee-well, there are several things to remember about “Duty,” the explosive memoir by former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates hitting bookstores around the world next week.
First, all memoirs are self-serving. As a book reviewer for several publications, including this newspaper, capital-based memoirs are notorious for settling old scores while justifying the author’s own far-seeing wisdom in every circumstance.
Second, memoirs are a partial historical snapshot — at best. No publisher in his right mind has any conceivable interest in objectivity or the verdict of history.
Controversy generates headlines, and headlines sell books. So any author unwilling to let fly is also unlikely to have his memoir published in the first place.
Those caveats aside, “Duty” is likely to be one of those rare books that define an era.
The reason: Mr. Gates, that famously discreet and consummate public servant for almost a half-century, decided at age 70 to let fly, finally content to cast stones and spread ripples wherever he threw them.
The inevitable effect is to confirm much of the criticism voiced in public and private by the most determined foes of President Obama’s leadership.
The usual network talking heads make much of Mr. Gates‘ close working relationship with Mr. Obama, predictably emphasizing personality rather than structure.
By law, custom and practice, though, the president and his defense secretary are joined at the hip, a marriage of civilian control collectively known as the national command authority. That intimate relationship is the linchpin of the chain of command, extending from Washington to joint combatant commands around the globe.
The system’s object: the American soldier, sailor, aviator and Marine in their front-line fighting positions around the world.
Consequently, it is simply appalling when Mr. Gates reports that Mr. Obama was personally solicitous toward senior military commanders, but deeply suspicious of their motivations and agendas.
Excuse me, but if the president didn’t trust those commanders, then why not relieve them?
Oh wait, he did that, didn’t he? It was an ongoing purge of the generals that Stalin might have envied. At least now we know why: a seething stew of personal antipathy, amateurism and micromanagement at the highest level of command.
That overriding reality apparently shaped ambiguities outlined by other authors, but now confirmed by the former secretary of defense. Mr. Gates alleges that the president presided over White House meetings in 2011 in which he disrespected his commanders, doubted his allies and even questioned his own strategy about Afghanistan, where American combat troops had just been recommitted.
According to an account by Bob Woodward in the Jan. 7 edition of The Washington Post, Mr. Gates opined that Mr. Obama “doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”
While some of the president’s defenders were quick to question the propriety of including such trusted and sensitive conversations in a published memoir, others wondered why Mr. Gates didn’t simply resign on the spot.
It’s a fair question, but the larger issue is the quality of Mr. Obama’s leadership. Even for a man schooled in community organizing rather military service, how could any president with even a modicum of conscience ask American troops to commit life and limb to a war that their supposed commander in chief rightly regarded as a highly dubious venture?
Reading that highly excerpted passage, I was reminded of a poignant scene from the classic movie “Jaws.” The mother of a young boy killed by the marauding shark confronts the city official who failed to sound the alarm, slapping his face in mute outrage for his dereliction of duty.
If the president really had those misgivings about the wisdom of committing American sons and daughters to combat in a mountainous hellhole half a world away, then what became of those strong convictions he had always assured us he felt?
If these were his true beliefs with regard to Afghanistan in 2011, then did the same apply to Benghazi in 2012 and afterward?
The White House and its usual media suspects have rallied around Obama insiders such as former National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, who was a “disaster” in the declared opinion of Mr. Gates.
The former defense secretary is equally scathing in criticizing that noted statesman Joseph Biden, glimpsed during the 2012 campaign debates attempting a troubling imitation of a sitting vice president.
Even more worrisome is Mr. Gates‘ pithy confirmation of something many of us only suspected. “I felt that agreements with the Obama White House were good for only as long as they were politically convenient.”
From Watergate to the Obama White House, insider accounts are convincing and even invaluable when they tear away the great masks of public deception. Always performing his duty as a good servant to the nation, Robert M. Gates apparently has done just that.
Col. Ken Allard, retired from the Army, is a military analyst and author on national security issues.
Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
dIQwyOm980qN9RQQ
|
technology
|
New York Magazine
| 00
|
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/04/twitter-is-seriously-warping-perceptions-of-the-presidential-race.html
|
Twitter Is Seriously Warping Perceptions of the Presidential Race
|
2016-04-11
|
Jesse Singal
|
We can ’ t control what irrationally annoys us any more than we can control our taste in food or music — it ’ s the result of a thousand invisible factors working in complicated ways . In my case , for the last couple months , I ’ ve been weirdly , unfortunately fixated on the dumb , bad-faith , please-jam-sporks-into-my-eyes-right-now arguments between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton supporters playing out on my Facebook feed and , to an even greater extent , on Twitter .
What makes me desperate for the sporks is the extent to which many people engaging in online arguments on both sides of the Democratic primary turn into nasty , bullying blowhards incapable of seeing their ideological opponents ’ basic humanity . To Bernie fans , Hillary supporters ’ only policy goal is to have Wall Street bankers run thousands of drone missions geared at wiping out distant orphans . To Hillary supporters , Bernie fans are motivated only by misogyny and the sort of revolutionary politics that would get you laughed out of even a stoned-freshmen dorm-room debate about politics .
In some cases , I actually know and respect the people engaged in the squabbling — when the subject is something less heated than the primary campaign , they ’ re nice , reasonable folk capable of holding nuanced views , weighing different options carefully , and so on . But the vortex of online enmity has sucked them in , and I inevitably end up reading their dumb arguments and getting angry when I could be doing more productive things , like searching for examples of different species of animals becoming best friends .
All of which is why I appreciate the gust of cool , rationalizing air provided by Matthew Yglesias ’ s piece in Vox on Friday . Yglesias explains that , despite all the you ’ re-Hitler-no-you-are nonsense going on online , when you look at nationally representative samples of Clinton and Sanders fans rather than anec-data plucked from the extremely nonrepresentative sample of people who like to pat themselves on the back for their clever Twitter bon mots , the two groups don ’ t really disagree on that much . That is , they simply aren ’ t that far apart on key policy issues , as this Vox graphic shows . And when there is a gap it isn ’ t even always in the direction you ’ d expect , judging from the Twitter warriors on the front lines ( for one thing , Yglesias notes that “ Clinton supporters are somewhat less uniformly pro-choice than Sanders supporters. ” ) .
To Yglesias , all this suggests that “ pundits watching their mentions are mainlining a deeply misleading view of the Democratic primary — one that features a passionate and bitter race that simply doesn ’ t exist in the real world , complete with starkly polarized views on issues that don ’ t exist among actual voters. ” I ’ d take things a bit further : I think this is yet another example of how social media — and online media in general — can make the world appear much darker than it really is , and can skew our view of it in important and potentially harmful ways .
I wrote about this a year and a half ago : When we look out at the media world , we ’ re not seeing some objective representation of how things “ really ” are , but rather an intensely filtered one . Blanket coverage of plane crashes makes us think that every other airliner is careening out of the sky , when it fact plane travel remains exceedingly safe ; ISIS stories make us think the world is headed toward a cataclysmic bloodbath , when in fact we ’ re in the midst of a long global trajectory toward more peace and more prosperity ( albeit one that is being disrupted in serious ways at the moment in the Middle East ) .
So it goes with the Democratic primary race . If I were to base my judgment of it based only on what I was seeing on social media , I ’ d think everyone is poised to rip out everyone else ’ s throats . The reality , of course , is that the average Democrat ( and American ) thinks and talks about politics less than the Twitter-screamers , has less intense views , is less deeply ideological , and is much more open to compromise .
What ’ s funny is that until I had read Yglesias ’ s piece , the reality of things hadn ’ t really sunk in . Somewhere in the back of my head , of course , I “ knew ” that there were important differences between what was going on on Twitter and how the rest of the country viewed the race , but when you spend a lot of time on there — or fixated on any media source — the rational part of your brain ends up getting bullied into submission by the constant pingpingping of content , to the point where it ’ s afraid to even pipe up .
For those of us for whom being plugged in on social media is ( or feels ) important , for professional reasons or otherwise , I ’ m not sure what the solution is . Maybe at the end of every day , when we ’ re mercifully setting aside our computers for the night , we should , Bart Simpson-style , write “ Twitter is not the world . Twitter is not the world . Twitter is not the world ” on a blackboard a few times — because it ’ s just way too easy to forget that .
|
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders shake hands at the start of the debate at the University of New Hampshire on February 4, 2016, in Durham, New Hampshire. Photo: Justin Sullivan/2016 Getty Images
We can’t control what irrationally annoys us any more than we can control our taste in food or music — it’s the result of a thousand invisible factors working in complicated ways. In my case, for the last couple months, I’ve been weirdly, unfortunately fixated on the dumb, bad-faith, please-jam-sporks-into-my-eyes-right-now arguments between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton supporters playing out on my Facebook feed and, to an even greater extent, on Twitter.
What makes me desperate for the sporks is the extent to which many people engaging in online arguments on both sides of the Democratic primary turn into nasty, bullying blowhards incapable of seeing their ideological opponents’ basic humanity. To Bernie fans, Hillary supporters’ only policy goal is to have Wall Street bankers run thousands of drone missions geared at wiping out distant orphans. To Hillary supporters, Bernie fans are motivated only by misogyny and the sort of revolutionary politics that would get you laughed out of even a stoned-freshmen dorm-room debate about politics.
In some cases, I actually know and respect the people engaged in the squabbling — when the subject is something less heated than the primary campaign, they’re nice, reasonable folk capable of holding nuanced views, weighing different options carefully, and so on. But the vortex of online enmity has sucked them in, and I inevitably end up reading their dumb arguments and getting angry when I could be doing more productive things, like searching for examples of different species of animals becoming best friends.
All of which is why I appreciate the gust of cool, rationalizing air provided by Matthew Yglesias’s piece in Vox on Friday. Yglesias explains that, despite all the you’re-Hitler-no-you-are nonsense going on online, when you look at nationally representative samples of Clinton and Sanders fans rather than anec-data plucked from the extremely nonrepresentative sample of people who like to pat themselves on the back for their clever Twitter bon mots, the two groups don’t really disagree on that much. That is, they simply aren’t that far apart on key policy issues, as this Vox graphic shows. And when there is a gap it isn’t even always in the direction you’d expect, judging from the Twitter warriors on the front lines (for one thing, Yglesias notes that “Clinton supporters are somewhat less uniformly pro-choice than Sanders supporters.”).
To Yglesias, all this suggests that “pundits watching their mentions are mainlining a deeply misleading view of the Democratic primary — one that features a passionate and bitter race that simply doesn’t exist in the real world, complete with starkly polarized views on issues that don’t exist among actual voters.” I’d take things a bit further: I think this is yet another example of how social media — and online media in general — can make the world appear much darker than it really is, and can skew our view of it in important and potentially harmful ways.
I wrote about this a year and a half ago: When we look out at the media world, we’re not seeing some objective representation of how things “really” are, but rather an intensely filtered one. Blanket coverage of plane crashes makes us think that every other airliner is careening out of the sky, when it fact plane travel remains exceedingly safe; ISIS stories make us think the world is headed toward a cataclysmic bloodbath, when in fact we’re in the midst of a long global trajectory toward more peace and more prosperity (albeit one that is being disrupted in serious ways at the moment in the Middle East).
So it goes with the Democratic primary race. If I were to base my judgment of it based only on what I was seeing on social media, I’d think everyone is poised to rip out everyone else’s throats. The reality, of course, is that the average Democrat (and American) thinks and talks about politics less than the Twitter-screamers, has less intense views, is less deeply ideological, and is much more open to compromise.
What’s funny is that until I had read Yglesias’s piece, the reality of things hadn’t really sunk in. Somewhere in the back of my head, of course, I “knew” that there were important differences between what was going on on Twitter and how the rest of the country viewed the race, but when you spend a lot of time on there — or fixated on any media source — the rational part of your brain ends up getting bullied into submission by the constant pingpingping of content, to the point where it’s afraid to even pipe up.
For those of us for whom being plugged in on social media is (or feels) important, for professional reasons or otherwise, I’m not sure what the solution is. Maybe at the end of every day, when we’re mercifully setting aside our computers for the night, we should, Bart Simpson-style, write “Twitter is not the world. Twitter is not the world. Twitter is not the world” on a blackboard a few times — because it’s just way too easy to forget that.
|
www.nymag.com
| 0left
|
0Qd3Vur7PHzlj6Zs
|
criminal_justice
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/10/roger-stone-trump-commutes-sentence-analysis
|
Roger Stone: Trump proves his love for 'law and order' doesn't apply to friends
|
2020-07-10
|
David Smith
|
The law and order president has decided that a convicted criminal should not go to prison .
It may be mere coincidence that Roger Stone is an old friend and fellow resident of Florida with a shared crush on Richard Nixon .
Trump commutes sentence of Roger Stone , longtime friend and adviser Read more
It may also be mere coincidence that Donald Trump made the announcement on a Friday night , a graveyard shift that has become his favorite for firing inspectors general and others who get in his way .
Stone was convicted by a jury last November of obstructing a congressional investigation , lying under oath to Congress and tampering with a witness . He did so to protect Trump . The 67-year-old was scheduled to report by Tuesday to a federal prison in Jesup , Georgia , to begin serving a sentence of three years and four months .
Three and a half years into his presidency , Trump ’ s intervention was spectacularly unsurprising . He did not grant Stone a full pardon that would have erased his criminal record , which might perhaps have been too incendiary in an election year . Even so , it was one of Trump ’ s most savage attacks yet on the rule of law .
“ Trump commutes the prison sentence of Roger Stone while the officers that killed Breonna Taylor are still free , ” tweeted Senator Kamala Harris of California , referring to an African American medical worker killed in Louisville , Kentucky , earlier this year . “ The two systems of justice in this country must end . ”
Jeffrey Toobin , the chief legal analyst for CNN , added on the network : “ This is the most corrupt and cronyistic act in perhaps all of recent history . Nixon at the height of Watergate never pardoned or commuted the sentences of any of the people involved in Watergate . He thought he could never get away with it . ”
Personal and political forces worked in favour of Stone , whose cause was reportedly championed by the Fox News host Tucker Carlson . The self-proclaimed “ dirty trickster ” and dapper dresser , who has Nixon ’ s face tattooed on his back , has been pals with Trump since the 1980s , his longest-serving political adviser . Both men are mavericks who relish riling liberals . Stone was involved in the 2016 election campaign and refused to flip in court .
According to Howard Fineman , an NBC News analyst , Stone said of Trump earlier on Friday : “ He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him . It would have eased my situation considerably . But I didn ’ t. ” The implication being that Stone could have revealed damaging information about the president if he chose .
Sparing Stone also fits Trump ’ s “ Obamagate ” narrative that the special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation , which documented Russian interference in the 2016 election to boost Trump ’ s candidacy , was a hoax .
Stone was convicted for lying to the House intelligence committee about his attempts to contact WikiLeaks , the website that released damaging emails about Trump ’ s 2016 election rival Hillary Clinton . He was one of several Trump associates charged with crimes in the investigation .
In a statement on Friday , the White House said Stone was a “ victim of the Russia Hoax that the Left and its allies in the media perpetuated for years in an attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency ” .
Roger Stone : five things to know about Trump 's controversial ally Read more
It added : “ There was never any collusion between the Trump Campaign , or the Trump Administration , with Russia . Such collusion was never anything other than a fantasy of partisans unable to accept the result of the 2016 election . ”
Mueller ’ s investigation did find a total of 272 contacts between Trump ’ s campaign team and Russia-linked operatives , including at least 38 meetings .
More broadly , Trump , often frustrated by Congress or the constitution , has embraced the pardon power like a medieval monarch . Among the beneficiaries have been the conservative commentator Dinesh D ’ Souza , the ex-Arizona-county-sheriff Joe Arpaio , the former White House aide Lewis “ Scooter ” Libby , the former New York City police commissioner Bernie Kerik , the financier Michael Milken and the newspaper publisher Conrad Black , who had written a laudatory book about the president .
Trump even commuted the prison sentence of the Democratic former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich , who had been a contestant on Trump ’ s TV show Celebrity Apprentice . Meanwhile the US attorney general , William Barr , is seeking to dismiss charges against Trump ’ s former national security adviser Michael Flynn , who admitted lying to the FBI but is seen by Trump as another Mueller martyr .
Even as he demands arrest and jail for protesters who topple statues , the president is straining the justice system to breaking point with his selective application of executive clemency . But what if he starts prosecuting perceived enemies , too ? Don ’ t expect Barr to stand in his way .
|
The law and order president has decided that a convicted criminal should not go to prison.
It may be mere coincidence that Roger Stone is an old friend and fellow resident of Florida with a shared crush on Richard Nixon.
Trump commutes sentence of Roger Stone, longtime friend and adviser Read more
It may also be mere coincidence that Donald Trump made the announcement on a Friday night, a graveyard shift that has become his favorite for firing inspectors general and others who get in his way.
Stone was convicted by a jury last November of obstructing a congressional investigation, lying under oath to Congress and tampering with a witness. He did so to protect Trump. The 67-year-old was scheduled to report by Tuesday to a federal prison in Jesup, Georgia, to begin serving a sentence of three years and four months.
Three and a half years into his presidency, Trump’s intervention was spectacularly unsurprising. He did not grant Stone a full pardon that would have erased his criminal record, which might perhaps have been too incendiary in an election year. Even so, it was one of Trump’s most savage attacks yet on the rule of law.
“Trump commutes the prison sentence of Roger Stone while the officers that killed Breonna Taylor are still free,” tweeted Senator Kamala Harris of California, referring to an African American medical worker killed in Louisville, Kentucky, earlier this year. “The two systems of justice in this country must end.”
Jeffrey Toobin, the chief legal analyst for CNN, added on the network: “This is the most corrupt and cronyistic act in perhaps all of recent history. Nixon at the height of Watergate never pardoned or commuted the sentences of any of the people involved in Watergate. He thought he could never get away with it.”
Personal and political forces worked in favour of Stone, whose cause was reportedly championed by the Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The self-proclaimed “dirty trickster” and dapper dresser, who has Nixon’s face tattooed on his back, has been pals with Trump since the 1980s, his longest-serving political adviser. Both men are mavericks who relish riling liberals. Stone was involved in the 2016 election campaign and refused to flip in court.
According to Howard Fineman, an NBC News analyst, Stone said of Trump earlier on Friday: “He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t.” The implication being that Stone could have revealed damaging information about the president if he chose.
Sparing Stone also fits Trump’s “Obamagate” narrative that the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, which documented Russian interference in the 2016 election to boost Trump’s candidacy, was a hoax.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Roger Stone in Washington. Photograph: Shawn Thew/EPA
Stone was convicted for lying to the House intelligence committee about his attempts to contact WikiLeaks, the website that released damaging emails about Trump’s 2016 election rival Hillary Clinton. He was one of several Trump associates charged with crimes in the investigation.
In a statement on Friday, the White House said Stone was a “victim of the Russia Hoax that the Left and its allies in the media perpetuated for years in an attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency”.
Roger Stone: five things to know about Trump's controversial ally Read more
It added: “There was never any collusion between the Trump Campaign, or the Trump Administration, with Russia. Such collusion was never anything other than a fantasy of partisans unable to accept the result of the 2016 election.”
Mueller’s investigation did find a total of 272 contacts between Trump’s campaign team and Russia-linked operatives, including at least 38 meetings.
More broadly, Trump, often frustrated by Congress or the constitution, has embraced the pardon power like a medieval monarch. Among the beneficiaries have been the conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza, the ex-Arizona-county-sheriff Joe Arpaio, the former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former New York City police commissioner Bernie Kerik, the financier Michael Milken and the newspaper publisher Conrad Black, who had written a laudatory book about the president.
Trump even commuted the prison sentence of the Democratic former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who had been a contestant on Trump’s TV show Celebrity Apprentice. Meanwhile the US attorney general, William Barr, is seeking to dismiss charges against Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who admitted lying to the FBI but is seen by Trump as another Mueller martyr.
Even as he demands arrest and jail for protesters who topple statues, the president is straining the justice system to breaking point with his selective application of executive clemency. But what if he starts prosecuting perceived enemies, too? Don’t expect Barr to stand in his way.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
GQtJGa6Jt9WQbd2h
|
mexico
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/31/trump-mexico-insults-campaign/89641554/
|
Despite the last-minute meeting, Mexico likely won't forget Trump's insults
|
2016-08-31
|
So Donald Trump is going south of the border on Wednesday , hours before he is scheduled to give his `` major '' speech on how he will take on illegal immigration . At least that 's what Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said .
It 's hard to foresee what could come of the meeting between Mexico 's head of state and the GOP presidential nominee . Peña Nieto has compared Trump to dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini . He told CNN he could n't — and would n't — pay for the wall Trump so often promises to have built .
Already , Trump 's decision to head down to Mexico is asubject of ridicule on Twitter . Like many trends online , the feed is full of comical , smug and downright cruel comments , but many of them allude to insults Trump has hurled at Mexicans since he started his campaign .
How has Trump insulted Mexico ? Let us count the ways .
Unlike most candidates ' first speeches , Trump 's was pretty telling . He touted his background as a real estate mogul , but he also launched right into what would become his major selling point among conservatives : illegal immigration . And , it seemed , he took the first step toward winning over those right-wing voters , at the cost of alienating American voters of Mexican descent and their diverse group of allies .
`` When Mexico sends its people , they 're not sending their best ... They 're bringing drugs . They 're bringing crime . They 're rapists . And some , I assume , are good people . But I speak to border guards , and they tell us what we 're getting . And it only makes common sense . It only makes common sense .
`` They 're sending us not the right people . It 's coming from more than Mexico . It 's coming from all over South and Latin America , and it 's coming probably from the Middle East , but we do n't know because we have no protection and we have no competence . We do n't know what 's happening . And it 's got ta stop . And it 's got ta stop fast . ''
Less than a month into his presidential campaign , Trump tweeted an insult aimed at then-GOP presidential hopeful Jeb Bush , suggesting he must be sympathetic to undocumented immigrants since his wife , Columba , is from Mexico .
The tweet was deleted , but just like diamonds , screenshots are forever .
During a debate in August 2015 in Cleveland , Fox News ' Chris Wallace asked Trump to respond to his controversial comments on Mexicans . Trump said U.S. Border Patrol agents told him Mexico is sending its criminals on purpose and taking advantage of America 's government .
`` They say this is what 's happening because our leaders are stupid , our politicians are stupid , and the Mexican government is much smarter , much sharper , much more cunning , '' he said . `` They send the bad ones over because they do n't want to pay for them , they do n't want to take care of them . Why should they , when the stupid leaders of the United States will do it for me ? ''
In August 2015 , Trump told NBC 's Chuck Todd on Meet The Press , `` We 're going to keep the families together , but they have to go . ''
When asked about undocumented immigrants who had nowhere to go home to , Trump said again `` they have to go . ''
When he said Mexico has to pay for the wall :
During the same interview with Todd , Trump said , `` I 'm a huge fan of the Mexican people . I have thousands of Mexican people working for me right now and have over the years . But they have to pay for the wall . And we need the wall . ''
When he thought he could win over Hispanics with a Cinco de Mayo tweet :
In May 2016 , Trump called out the judge presiding over a class-action lawsuit against his Trump University operations .
`` I happen to have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump . A hater ... I have had horrible rulings , I have been treated unfairly by this judge . Now this judge is of Mexican heritage , I 'm building a wall . ''
`` He 's a member of a society , where you know , very pro-Mexico and that 's fine , it 's all fine , '' Trump continued . `` But I think he could recuse himself . ''
The judge in question is Gonzalo Curiel , an East Chicago native of Mexican descent . Curiel is a law graduate from Indiana University who became a federal prosecutor in California who successfully prosecuted members of a Mexican drug cartel who wanted to have him killed .
So why did Trump call Curiel a pro-Mexican hater ? Because Curiel ordered the release of the documents from the class-action lawsuit against Trump University in California , following a request by The Washington Post . Those documents shed light on the operations of the university , including strategies targeting students with the most liquid assets and promoting the most expensive course offerings .
|
Steph Solis
USA TODAY
So Donald Trump is going south of the border on Wednesday, hours before he is scheduled to give his "major" speech on how he will take on illegal immigration. At least that's what Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said.
It's hard to foresee what could come of the meeting between Mexico's head of state and the GOP presidential nominee. Peña Nieto has compared Trump to dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. He told CNN he couldn't — and wouldn't — pay for the wall Trump so often promises to have built.
Already, Trump's decision to head down to Mexico is asubject of ridicule on Twitter. Like many trends online, the feed is full of comical, smug and downright cruel comments, but many of them allude to insults Trump has hurled at Mexicans since he started his campaign.
How has Trump insulted Mexico? Let us count the ways.
When he announced his candidacy for president:
Unlike most candidates' first speeches, Trump's was pretty telling. He touted his background as a real estate mogul, but he also launched right into what would become his major selling point among conservatives: illegal immigration. And, it seemed, he took the first step toward winning over those right-wing voters, at the cost of alienating American voters of Mexican descent and their diverse group of allies.
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best ... They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards, and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense.
"They're sending us not the right people. It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably from the Middle East, but we don't know because we have no protection and we have no competence. We don't know what's happening. And it's gotta stop. And it's gotta stop fast."
When he attacked Jeb Bush over his Mexican-born wife:
Less than a month into his presidential campaign, Trump tweeted an insult aimed at then-GOP presidential hopeful Jeb Bush, suggesting he must be sympathetic to undocumented immigrants since his wife, Columba, is from Mexico.
The tweet was deleted, but just like diamonds, screenshots are forever.
When he suggested Mexico is sending criminals on purpose:
During a debate in August 2015 in Cleveland, Fox News' Chris Wallace asked Trump to respond to his controversial comments on Mexicans. Trump said U.S. Border Patrol agents told him Mexico is sending its criminals on purpose and taking advantage of America's government.
"They say this is what's happening because our leaders are stupid, our politicians are stupid, and the Mexican government is much smarter, much sharper, much more cunning," he said. "They send the bad ones over because they don't want to pay for them, they don't want to take care of them. Why should they, when the stupid leaders of the United States will do it for me?"
When he said all undocumented immigrants 'have to go':
In August 2015, Trump told NBC's Chuck Todd on Meet The Press, "We're going to keep the families together, but they have to go."
When asked about undocumented immigrants who had nowhere to go home to, Trump said again "they have to go."
When he said Mexico has to pay for the wall:
During the same interview with Todd, Trump said, "I'm a huge fan of the Mexican people. I have thousands of Mexican people working for me right now and have over the years. But they have to pay for the wall. And we need the wall.''
Fact check: Donald Trump’s immigration plan
When he thought he could win over Hispanics with a Cinco de Mayo tweet:
When he criticized federal judge of Mexican descent:
In May 2016, Trump called out the judge presiding over a class-action lawsuit against his Trump University operations.
"I happen to have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump. A hater ... I have had horrible rulings, I have been treated unfairly by this judge. Now this judge is of Mexican heritage, I'm building a wall."
"He's a member of a society, where you know, very pro-Mexico and that's fine, it's all fine," Trump continued. "But I think he could recuse himself."
Trump judge 'a Hoosier and an American'
The judge in question is Gonzalo Curiel, an East Chicago native of Mexican descent. Curiel is a law graduate from Indiana University who became a federal prosecutor in California who successfully prosecuted members of a Mexican drug cartel who wanted to have him killed.
So why did Trump call Curiel a pro-Mexican hater? Because Curiel ordered the release of the documents from the class-action lawsuit against Trump University in California, following a request by The Washington Post. Those documents shed light on the operations of the university, including strategies targeting students with the most liquid assets and promoting the most expensive course offerings.
For the Record: Bienvenidos, Sr. Trump
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
ecajBcsTRRaZoF1H
|
|
animal_welfare
|
American Spectator
| 22
|
https://spectator.org/rat-story-is-a-california-allegory/
|
Rat Story Is a California Allegory
|
Steven Greenhut, Patricia Mahon, William Murchison, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Debra J. Saunders, Melissa Mackenzie
|
It was one of the most absurd stories of California ’ s lunacy . In the midst of one of the worst droughts in the state ’ s history , state and federal wildlife officials were depleting a large reservoir in the Sierra foothills to save ( by increasing river flows ) a handful of hatchery-born fish that had virtually zero chance of making it to the Pacific Ocean alive . At a water-board meeting I attended , local farmers and residents were incredulous at officials ’ refusal to prioritize humans over critters .
This week ’ s news gives that story a run for its money . California ’ s rat population has been exploding because of post-drought environmental reasons , the spread of filth caused by the growing homeless population , and the refusal of some cities to deal with the problem . If you ignore disease-carrying rats , it won ’ t take long to have more disease-carrying rats . A recent survey of pest-control companies found virtually all of them reporting dramatic increases in rat infestations .
“ The state is seeing a troubling resurgence of rodents , which can carry a wide array of diseases that have been around since the Middle Ages , ” the Sacramento Bee reported . “ The metropolis of Los Angeles County , for one , has seen skyrocketing cases of one such disease , typhus. ” In fact , the rat infestation had gotten so bad that rats had forced the California EPA to shut down its playground out of fear that workers ’ kids would contract diseases .
The agency had first planned to step up the use of pesticides , but after environmental groups objected , the director promised to find ecologically safer alternatives . This is ironic , as the Bee noted , because the building also houses the state Department of Pesticide Regulation . So even when the bureaucrats ’ own offspring are in potential danger , the demands of the environmental lobby always take precedence over the concerns of regular citizens .
Typical rat poison is effective , but it ’ s an anticoagulant that of course causes internal bleeding . State wildlife officials have found some of its residue in virtually all of the mountain lion carcasses the state has tested . It has also been found in owls and weasel-like creatures around the northwestern marijuana grows . And the Bee further reports that “ In 2017 , a San Francisco coyote died from internal bleeding caused by the toxins. ” Predators are poisoned when they eat poisoned rats , but typically the toxin levels build up but rarely kill the secondary animal .
The points made in the above paragraph are interesting from an ecological perspective . In an ideal world , it might be troubling that a coyote died from internal bleeding or that cougars become mangy from eating poisoned rats . Then again , we ’ re talking about coyotes and cougars . When I lived by a canyon in the San Gabriel Valley , the coyotes so regularly feasted on cats and Chihuahuas that wildlife officials ended up exterminating ( via gunshot ) dozens of them .
But however sad it is that a male mountain lion kitten with a tracking collar was found dead not long ago , it would be even sadder for a human child to contract typhus — a horribly painful disease . Other diseases , including some that are life-threatening , can be caused by rodent feces or bites . We ’ re all familiar with rabies and , you know , the plague .
Beyond state officials limiting the use of rat poison around their properties , the Legislature is considering a measure , Assembly Bill 1788 , that would vastly limit the use of these types of pesticides . It would mostly ban powerful second-generation rodenticides . It would also forbid the use of first-generation anticoagulants , which are less likely to kill wildlife after a single feeding of a poisoned rodent , on state-owned land barring a public-health or agricultural rationale .
“ [ S ] ince the 1980s , and even as most recently as this week the Department of Fish and Wildlife have been warning about the impacts rodenticides are having on all wildlife in the state , ” argued its author , Assemblyman Richard Bloom , D-Santa Monica . The bill passed overwhelmingly in the Assembly . Its clear goal is to protect wildlife . By contrast , opponents were focused on — get this — the impact of rodent-spread diseases on the human population .
The environmental community doesn ’ t offer much of an alternative for restaurants , farms , and homeowners affected by the rat crisis . “ Environmentalists say there are other options to manage the state ’ s pests , such as making cities more sanitary ( rodents are often drawn to the trash from the state ’ s growing numbers of homeless encampments , some experts say ) and by using pesticides that are less likely to contaminate wildlife , ” according to that Bee article .
That sounds so reasonable , until you follow public debates about the homeless situation . California officials don ’ t have a clue what to do about it , with most of them viewing it as a failure of public spending rather than a complex mishmash of issues involving addiction , poverty , mental illness , and housing regulations . I ’ d bet that an outbreak of the bubonic plague will come well before lawmakers and local governments get any sort of handle on homelessness . And those less-toxic approaches also are generally less effective .
“ Sustainable control can only be achieved by reducing the rodent carrying capacity of the environment , principally by reducing food and harborage , ” according to the Barn Owl Trust . That also sounds great , but how many typhus outbreaks do we want to endure as we await for the environment to reduce its rat-carrying capabilities ?
No wonder California ’ s rat crisis has joined a host of other intractable California crises . And no wonder we ’ re still seeing regular news stories about Californians high-tailing it to Utah or Texas . When your state government places the welfare of coyotes over your children , what more do you need to know ?
|
Sacramento
It was one of the most absurd stories of California’s lunacy. In the midst of one of the worst droughts in the state’s history, state and federal wildlife officials were depleting a large reservoir in the Sierra foothills to save (by increasing river flows) a handful of hatchery-born fish that had virtually zero chance of making it to the Pacific Ocean alive. At a water-board meeting I attended, local farmers and residents were incredulous at officials’ refusal to prioritize humans over critters.
This week’s news gives that story a run for its money. California’s rat population has been exploding because of post-drought environmental reasons, the spread of filth caused by the growing homeless population, and the refusal of some cities to deal with the problem. If you ignore disease-carrying rats, it won’t take long to have more disease-carrying rats. A recent survey of pest-control companies found virtually all of them reporting dramatic increases in rat infestations.
“The state is seeing a troubling resurgence of rodents, which can carry a wide array of diseases that have been around since the Middle Ages,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “The metropolis of Los Angeles County, for one, has seen skyrocketing cases of one such disease, typhus.” In fact, the rat infestation had gotten so bad that rats had forced the California EPA to shut down its playground out of fear that workers’ kids would contract diseases.
The agency had first planned to step up the use of pesticides, but after environmental groups objected, the director promised to find ecologically safer alternatives. This is ironic, as the Bee noted, because the building also houses the state Department of Pesticide Regulation. So even when the bureaucrats’ own offspring are in potential danger, the demands of the environmental lobby always take precedence over the concerns of regular citizens.
Typical rat poison is effective, but it’s an anticoagulant that of course causes internal bleeding. State wildlife officials have found some of its residue in virtually all of the mountain lion carcasses the state has tested. It has also been found in owls and weasel-like creatures around the northwestern marijuana grows. And the Bee further reports that “In 2017, a San Francisco coyote died from internal bleeding caused by the toxins.” Predators are poisoned when they eat poisoned rats, but typically the toxin levels build up but rarely kill the secondary animal.
The points made in the above paragraph are interesting from an ecological perspective. In an ideal world, it might be troubling that a coyote died from internal bleeding or that cougars become mangy from eating poisoned rats. Then again, we’re talking about coyotes and cougars. When I lived by a canyon in the San Gabriel Valley, the coyotes so regularly feasted on cats and Chihuahuas that wildlife officials ended up exterminating (via gunshot) dozens of them.
But however sad it is that a male mountain lion kitten with a tracking collar was found dead not long ago, it would be even sadder for a human child to contract typhus — a horribly painful disease. Other diseases, including some that are life-threatening, can be caused by rodent feces or bites. We’re all familiar with rabies and, you know, the plague.
Beyond state officials limiting the use of rat poison around their properties, the Legislature is considering a measure, Assembly Bill 1788, that would vastly limit the use of these types of pesticides. It would mostly ban powerful second-generation rodenticides. It would also forbid the use of first-generation anticoagulants, which are less likely to kill wildlife after a single feeding of a poisoned rodent, on state-owned land barring a public-health or agricultural rationale.
“[S]ince the 1980s, and even as most recently as this week the Department of Fish and Wildlife have been warning about the impacts rodenticides are having on all wildlife in the state,” argued its author, Assemblyman Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica. The bill passed overwhelmingly in the Assembly. Its clear goal is to protect wildlife. By contrast, opponents were focused on — get this — the impact of rodent-spread diseases on the human population.
The environmental community doesn’t offer much of an alternative for restaurants, farms, and homeowners affected by the rat crisis. “Environmentalists say there are other options to manage the state’s pests, such as making cities more sanitary (rodents are often drawn to the trash from the state’s growing numbers of homeless encampments, some experts say) and by using pesticides that are less likely to contaminate wildlife,” according to that Bee article.
That sounds so reasonable, until you follow public debates about the homeless situation. California officials don’t have a clue what to do about it, with most of them viewing it as a failure of public spending rather than a complex mishmash of issues involving addiction, poverty, mental illness, and housing regulations. I’d bet that an outbreak of the bubonic plague will come well before lawmakers and local governments get any sort of handle on homelessness. And those less-toxic approaches also are generally less effective.
“Sustainable control can only be achieved by reducing the rodent carrying capacity of the environment, principally by reducing food and harborage,” according to the Barn Owl Trust. That also sounds great, but how many typhus outbreaks do we want to endure as we await for the environment to reduce its rat-carrying capabilities?
No wonder California’s rat crisis has joined a host of other intractable California crises. And no wonder we’re still seeing regular news stories about Californians high-tailing it to Utah or Texas. When your state government places the welfare of coyotes over your children, what more do you need to know?
Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at [email protected].
|
www.spectator.org
| 1right
|
Yn3VxBbnIHAd86Pq
|
|
politics
|
Daily Mail
| 22
|
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8248717/Bin-Laden-wanted-kill-Obama-thought-Joe-Biden-totally-unprepared-president.html
|
Bin Laden wanted to kill Obama because he thought Joe Biden was totally unprepared to be president
|
2020-04-23
|
Milly Vincent
|
Osama bin Laden planned to assassinate President Barack Obama to unsteady the United States by putting 'totally unprepared ' Joe Biden in charge .
Declassified documents seized from Bin Laden 's Pakistan compound as he was killed in May 2011 reveal his plans to throw the U.S. 'into a crisis ' by killing Obama while he traveled in a plane with U.S. military commander David Petraeus .
The 45-page document , which were first reported by The Washington Post in 2012 , is now available in full along with hundreds of others from the raid .
Declassified documents seized from Bin Laden 's ( pictured ) Pakistan compound as he was killed in May 2011 reveal his plans to throw the U.S. 'into a crisis ' by killing Obama
Osama wrote to Al Qaeda deputy Atiyah Abd al-Rahman : 'The reason for concentrating on them is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make [ Vice President ] Biden take over the presidency , Biden is totally unprepared for that post , which will lead the U.S. into a crisis .
'As for Petraeus , he is the man of the hour ... and killing him would alter the war 's path ' in Afghanistan . '
Osama 's ambition was to have Ilyas Kasmiri , described by U.S. officials as Al Qaeda 's military operations chief in Pakistan , shoot down the plane carrying Obama .
The aspirations never developed into further planning , the U.S. intelligence service told The Washington Post .
President Barack Obama , accompanied by General David Petraeus , at the White House in Washington , Wednesday , June 23 , 2010
Detailing his plans Osama wrote : 'Please ask brother Ilyas to send me the steps he has taken into that work . '
Kasmiri was killed by a U.S. drone strike shortly after Bin Laden was killed by the U.S. special forces . Atiyah Abd al-Rahman was reportedly killed by a CIA drone strike in August of 2011 .
In a description of the tense 2011 strategy session ahead of the raid which killed Bin Laden , told by Biden almost eight years ago during a retreat in Maryland for congressional Democrats , he recalled that he said : 'Mr . President , my suggestion is , do n't go - we have to do two more things to see if he 's there . '
Joe Biden speaks during a campaign event on Friday in Independence , Iowa . He appeared to contradict himself regarding his role in the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden
He has since changed his story about the Navy SEAL mission in a conversation with a Fox News reporter earlier this year .
'As commander in chief , if you were ever handed a piece of intelligence that said you could stop an imminent attack on Americans — but you have to use an airstrike to take out a terrorist leader — would you pull the trigger ? ' the reporter asked Biden .
'Well we did - the guy 's name was Osama bin Laden , ' replied Biden , who was vice president when bin Laden was killed .
'Did n't you tell President Obama not to go after bin Laden that day ? ' the reporter asked .
Obama later told Mitt Romney that 'Even some in my own party , including my current vice president , had the same critique as you did ' , confirming Biden 's position against the strike on Bin Laden in 2011 , reports Fox News .
|
Osama bin Laden planned to assassinate President Barack Obama to unsteady the United States by putting 'totally unprepared' Joe Biden in charge.
Declassified documents seized from Bin Laden's Pakistan compound as he was killed in May 2011 reveal his plans to throw the U.S. 'into a crisis' by killing Obama while he traveled in a plane with U.S. military commander David Petraeus.
The 45-page document, which were first reported by The Washington Post in 2012, is now available in full along with hundreds of others from the raid.
Declassified documents seized from Bin Laden's (pictured) Pakistan compound as he was killed in May 2011 reveal his plans to throw the U.S. 'into a crisis' by killing Obama
Osama wrote to Al Qaeda deputy Atiyah Abd al-Rahman: 'The reason for concentrating on them is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make [Vice President] Biden take over the presidency, Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis.
'As for Petraeus, he is the man of the hour ... and killing him would alter the war's path' in Afghanistan.'
Osama's ambition was to have Ilyas Kasmiri, described by U.S. officials as Al Qaeda's military operations chief in Pakistan, shoot down the plane carrying Obama.
The aspirations never developed into further planning, the U.S. intelligence service told The Washington Post.
President Barack Obama, accompanied by General David Petraeus, at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Detailing his plans Osama wrote: 'Please ask brother Ilyas to send me the steps he has taken into that work.'
Kasmiri was killed by a U.S. drone strike shortly after Bin Laden was killed by the U.S. special forces. Atiyah Abd al-Rahman was reportedly killed by a CIA drone strike in August of 2011.
In a description of the tense 2011 strategy session ahead of the raid which killed Bin Laden, told by Biden almost eight years ago during a retreat in Maryland for congressional Democrats, he recalled that he said: 'Mr. President, my suggestion is, don't go - we have to do two more things to see if he's there.'
Joe Biden speaks during a campaign event on Friday in Independence, Iowa. He appeared to contradict himself regarding his role in the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden
He has since changed his story about the Navy SEAL mission in a conversation with a Fox News reporter earlier this year.
'As commander in chief, if you were ever handed a piece of intelligence that said you could stop an imminent attack on Americans — but you have to use an airstrike to take out a terrorist leader — would you pull the trigger?' the reporter asked Biden.
'Well we did - the guy's name was Osama bin Laden,' replied Biden, who was vice president when bin Laden was killed.
'Didn't you tell President Obama not to go after bin Laden that day?' the reporter asked.
'No, I didn't,' Biden said.
Obama later told Mitt Romney that 'Even some in my own party, including my current vice president, had the same critique as you did', confirming Biden's position against the strike on Bin Laden in 2011, reports Fox News.
|
www.dailymail.co.uk
| 1right
|
CO0BNaejAaEkzUSA
|
banking_and_finance
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-st-opens-lower-as-recession-signals-grow-idUSKCN1V4172
|
Wall St. opens lower as recession signals grow
|
2019-08-14
|
Stephen Culp
|
NEW YORK ( ███ ) - Wall Street sold off sharply on Wednesday as recession fears gripped the market after the U.S. Treasury yield curve temporarily inverted for the first time in 12 years .
All three major U.S. indexes closed down about 3 % , with the blue-chip Dow posting its biggest one-day point drop since October after 2-year Treasury yields surpassed those of 10-year bonds , which is considered a classic recession signal .
Dire economic data from China and Germany suggested a faltering global economy , stricken by the increasingly belligerent U.S.-China trade war , Brexit woes and geopolitical tensions .
Germany reported a contraction in second-quarter gross domestic product , and China ’ s industrial growth in July hit a 17-year low .
“ It was all negative and not much positive today , ” said Chuck Carlson , chief executive officer at Horizon Investment Services in Hammond , Indiana . “ We ’ re outside of the earnings season and markets are being batted around by news . ”
“ It ’ s a reactionary market right now and probably will continue to be , ” Carlson added . “ My guess is we ’ re probably in for this until after Labor Day . ”
Wednesday was the first time that yields for 2-year and 10-year Treasuries had inverted since June 2007 , months before the onset of the great recession , which crippled markets for years .
The U.S. yield curve has inverted before every recession in the past 50 years .
“ It could be different this time , ” Carlson said . “ When you ’ ve got $ 15 trillion in global government debt at negative yields , that ’ s a new animal .
“ Even if it is accurate in foreshadowing a recession , that doesn ’ t mean it ’ s coming tomorrow , ” he added .
A trader works on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange ( NYSE ) in New York , U.S. , August 14 , 2019 . ███/Eduardo Munoz
The CBOE volatility index , a gauge of investor anxiety , jumped 4.58 points to 22.10 .
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 800.49 points , or 3.05 % , to 25,479.42 , the S & P 500 lost 85.72 points , or 2.93 % , to 2,840.6 , and the Nasdaq Composite dropped 242.42 points , or 3.02 % , to 7,773.94 .
Over 300 of the S & P 500 ’ s components are down 10 % or more from their 52-week highs , according to Refinitiv data . More than 180 of those stocks have fallen more than 20 % from their 52-week highs , putting them in bear market territory .
All of the 11 major sectors in the S & P 500 closed in negative territory , with energy , financials , materials , consumer discretionary and communications services all falling 3 % or more .
Macy ’ s Inc ’ s shares plunged 13.2 % after the department store operator missed quarterly profit estimates and cut its full-year earnings estimates .
Rival department store operators Nordstrom Inc and Kohls Corp slid 10.6 % and 11.0 % , respectively .
A U.S. House of Representatives oversight panel called on Mylan NV and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd to turn over documents as part of a review into generic drug price increases .
Facebook Inc slid 4.6 % on news that the European Union ’ s lead regulator is investigating how the social media company handled data during the manual transcription of users ’ audio recordings .
Declining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 4.44-to-1 ratio ; on Nasdaq , a 5.33-to-1 ratio favored decliners .
The S & P 500 posted eight new 52-week highs and 51 new lows ; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 23 new highs and 282 new lows .
Volume on U.S. exchanges was 8.68 billion shares , compared with the 7.47 billion average over the last 20 trading days .
|
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Wall Street sold off sharply on Wednesday as recession fears gripped the market after the U.S. Treasury yield curve temporarily inverted for the first time in 12 years.
All three major U.S. indexes closed down about 3%, with the blue-chip Dow posting its biggest one-day point drop since October after 2-year Treasury yields surpassed those of 10-year bonds, which is considered a classic recession signal.
Dire economic data from China and Germany suggested a faltering global economy, stricken by the increasingly belligerent U.S.-China trade war, Brexit woes and geopolitical tensions.
Germany reported a contraction in second-quarter gross domestic product, and China’s industrial growth in July hit a 17-year low.
“It was all negative and not much positive today,” said Chuck Carlson, chief executive officer at Horizon Investment Services in Hammond, Indiana. “We’re outside of the earnings season and markets are being batted around by news.”
“It’s a reactionary market right now and probably will continue to be,” Carlson added. “My guess is we’re probably in for this until after Labor Day.”
Wednesday was the first time that yields for 2-year and 10-year Treasuries had inverted since June 2007, months before the onset of the great recession, which crippled markets for years.
The U.S. yield curve has inverted before every recession in the past 50 years.
“It could be different this time,” Carlson said. “When you’ve got $15 trillion in global government debt at negative yields, that’s a new animal.
“Even if it is accurate in foreshadowing a recession, that doesn’t mean it’s coming tomorrow,” he added.
A trader works on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York, U.S., August 14, 2019. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz
The CBOE volatility index, a gauge of investor anxiety, jumped 4.58 points to 22.10.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 800.49 points, or 3.05%, to 25,479.42, the S&P 500 lost 85.72 points, or 2.93%, to 2,840.6, and the Nasdaq Composite dropped 242.42 points, or 3.02%, to 7,773.94.
Over 300 of the S&P 500’s components are down 10% or more from their 52-week highs, according to Refinitiv data. More than 180 of those stocks have fallen more than 20% from their 52-week highs, putting them in bear market territory.
All of the 11 major sectors in the S&P 500 closed in negative territory, with energy, financials, materials, consumer discretionary and communications services all falling 3% or more.
Interest rate-sensitive banks tumbled 4.3%.
Macy’s Inc’s shares plunged 13.2% after the department store operator missed quarterly profit estimates and cut its full-year earnings estimates.
Rival department store operators Nordstrom Inc and Kohls Corp slid 10.6% and 11.0%, respectively.
A U.S. House of Representatives oversight panel called on Mylan NV and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd to turn over documents as part of a review into generic drug price increases.
Mylan fell 8.5% while U.S.-listed Teva shares dipped 10.5%.
Facebook Inc slid 4.6% on news that the European Union’s lead regulator is investigating how the social media company handled data during the manual transcription of users’ audio recordings.
FILE PHOTO: Traders work on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York, U.S., August 13, 2019. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz
Declining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 4.44-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 5.33-to-1 ratio favored decliners.
The S&P 500 posted eight new 52-week highs and 51 new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 23 new highs and 282 new lows.
Volume on U.S. exchanges was 8.68 billion shares, compared with the 7.47 billion average over the last 20 trading days.
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
f3fZxESLozIBhcE4
|
elections
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/15/sparks-fly-over-wages-wall-street-and-war-at-heated-clinton-sanders-debate.html
|
Sparks fly over wages, Wall Street and war at heated Clinton-Sanders debate
|
2016-04-15
|
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders shelved the niceties and went right after each other ’ s perceived weak spots at a must-win Democratic primary debate Thursday night where the front-runner challenged her rival ’ s grasp of complex policy issues – and the insurgent senator hammered her as a Wall Street pal just now talking the talk of working Americans .
The charge crystallized when Clinton seemed to surprise Sanders by declaring she ’ d back legislation for a $ 15 federal minimum wage .
“ To suddenly announce now you ’ re for 15 , I don ’ t think is quite accurate , ” Sanders said , noting Clinton previously has pushed for increasing the hourly wage to $ 12 . “ I think the secretary has confused a lot of people . ”
However , Clinton said while she supports the goal of raising the wage to $ 12 , she would sign legislation raising it to $ 15 if a Democratic Congress passes it .
“ I have said from the very beginning that I supported the fight for 15 , ” Clinton insisted .
The heated dispute , in which the candidates frequently interrupted each other , was one of many at a CNN-hosted debate heavy on populist rhetoric – and personal attacks .
Sanders at one point went as far as to suggest Clinton ’ s labeling of certain criminals as `` superpredators '' when she was first lady was `` a racist term and everybody knew it was a racist term . ''
The two faced off in Brooklyn , for their first debate in more than a month , at a critical time . The campaign heads soon into the final stretch with the upcoming New York primary seen as a determining factor . While Sanders trails badly in delegates , he is pointing to his recent winning streak in insisting he can still “ win this nomination . ”
“ Secretary Clinton cleaned our clock in the deep South . We got murdered there , ” he conceded , before adding . “ We ’ re out of the deep South now . ”
“ I ’ m not taking anything for granted , or any voter or any place , ” Clinton said , while noting she ’ s gotten millions more votes and saying the party will eventually have to unite .
Eyeing the contest ahead , both candidates courted Empire State voters Thursday by stressing their New York ties – and more broadly , hitting working-class themes .
At the same time , the debate veered heavily into foreign policy in the second half , with Sanders using the issue to challenge Clinton ’ s judgment while she questioned his experience .
“ Describing the problem is a lot easier than trying to solve it , ” Clinton said at one point , challenging Sanders as he laid out his goals for achieving Middle East peace .
Sanders also took heat from Clinton for describing Israeli military action as at times disproportionate . “ They do not invite rockets raining down on their towns and villages , ” she said . Sanders said Israel has a right to defend itself , but the U.S. needs to be even-handed in peace talks .
Sanders , as he has before , hammered Clinton for supporting regime change in Libya and Iraq , warning that it has “ unintended consequences. ” He said the former secretary of state ’ s continued support for a no-fly zone in Syria – which he noted President Obama does not support – “ runs the risk of getting us sucked into perpetual warfare in that region . ”
But Clinton defended her stance , and argued : “ Nobody stood up to Assad and removed him and we have had a far greater disaster in Syria . ”
Earlier , Sanders also pointed to Clinton ’ s support for the Iraq war , as well as “ virtually every disastrous trade agreement , ” in challenging her “ judgment ” to lead .
However , Clinton fired back , pointing to an editorial board meeting Sanders had with the New York Daily News where he seemed to struggle to explain his plan to break up the banks and various foreign policy positions .
“ He could not explain how ” he would break up the banks , Clinton said . She defended her own judgment and said : “ I think you need to have the judgment on day one to be both president and commander-in-chief . ”
While the tone was tougher than past face-offs , the candidates hit several familiar themes . Clinton suggested Sanders is too closely aligned with the gun industry . Sanders knocked Clinton for not releasing transcripts of her past paid speeches ( while saying he would soon release a new batch of tax returns ) .
On that point , Sanders said that despite the financial industry-fueled recession , “ Secretary Clinton was busy giving speeches to Goldman Sachs for $ 225,000 a speech . ”
Clinton , though , denied that any of that money influenced her decisions in office . Further , she said , “ I stood up against behaviors of the banks when I was a senator . ”
Sanders gave a sarcastic retort : “ Oh my goodness . They must have been really crushed by this . ”
As he did on the minimum wage , Sanders also seemed to accuse Clinton of shifting her position when it came to Social Security taxes , though Clinton again claimed she ’ s been consistent .
Sanders has been on an election roll lately , winning seven of the last eight state contests , most recently in Wyoming over the weekend . On stage Thursday , he touted his “ landslide victories ” in recent contests .
But analysts note the primary map could soon be turning back in the front-runner ’ s favor , not only in New York but other Eastern primary states .
With the stakes getting ever-higher , the tone of the contest had sharpened well before Thursday ’ s debate . Sanders recently alleged Clinton may not be qualified for president , before walking back the remark . And the Clinton campaign has criticized Sanders for the aggressive efforts by some of his supporters to persuade so-called superdelegates to back the Vermont senator .
Superdelegates are elected officials and other party insiders free to support whomever they want . Most of them are siding with Clinton , giving her an even wider delegate lead . But Clinton noted Thursday night that she holds the pledged delegate lead as well .
Going into the Empire State primary on Tuesday , Clinton so far has held the lead in most polls . Clinton spent eight years as a New York senator .
But Sanders , a Vermont senator who was born in Brooklyn , has been touting his local roots as he seeks to upset Clinton in the state .
While Sanders is on a winning streak in primaries and caucuses , he desperately needs a big victory in New York if he hopes to cut into Clinton 's delegate lead and slow her march to the nomination . To date , Clinton has accumulated 1,758 total delegates , compared with Sanders ’ 1,069 . It takes 2,383 to win .
|
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders shelved the niceties and went right after each other’s perceived weak spots at a must-win Democratic primary debate Thursday night where the front-runner challenged her rival’s grasp of complex policy issues – and the insurgent senator hammered her as a Wall Street pal just now talking the talk of working Americans.
The charge crystallized when Clinton seemed to surprise Sanders by declaring she’d back legislation for a $15 federal minimum wage.
“To suddenly announce now you’re for 15, I don’t think is quite accurate,” Sanders said, noting Clinton previously has pushed for increasing the hourly wage to $12. “I think the secretary has confused a lot of people.”
However, Clinton said while she supports the goal of raising the wage to $12, she would sign legislation raising it to $15 if a Democratic Congress passes it.
“I have said from the very beginning that I supported the fight for 15,” Clinton insisted.
The heated dispute, in which the candidates frequently interrupted each other, was one of many at a CNN-hosted debate heavy on populist rhetoric – and personal attacks.
Sanders at one point went as far as to suggest Clinton’s labeling of certain criminals as "superpredators" when she was first lady was "a racist term and everybody knew it was a racist term."
The two faced off in Brooklyn, for their first debate in more than a month, at a critical time. The campaign heads soon into the final stretch with the upcoming New York primary seen as a determining factor. While Sanders trails badly in delegates, he is pointing to his recent winning streak in insisting he can still “win this nomination.”
“Secretary Clinton cleaned our clock in the deep South. We got murdered there,” he conceded, before adding. “We’re out of the deep South now.”
“I’m not taking anything for granted, or any voter or any place,” Clinton said, while noting she’s gotten millions more votes and saying the party will eventually have to unite.
Eyeing the contest ahead, both candidates courted Empire State voters Thursday by stressing their New York ties – and more broadly, hitting working-class themes.
At the same time, the debate veered heavily into foreign policy in the second half, with Sanders using the issue to challenge Clinton’s judgment while she questioned his experience.
“Describing the problem is a lot easier than trying to solve it,” Clinton said at one point, challenging Sanders as he laid out his goals for achieving Middle East peace.
Sanders also took heat from Clinton for describing Israeli military action as at times disproportionate. “They do not invite rockets raining down on their towns and villages,” she said. Sanders said Israel has a right to defend itself, but the U.S. needs to be even-handed in peace talks.
Sanders, as he has before, hammered Clinton for supporting regime change in Libya and Iraq, warning that it has “unintended consequences.” He said the former secretary of state’s continued support for a no-fly zone in Syria – which he noted President Obama does not support – “runs the risk of getting us sucked into perpetual warfare in that region.”
But Clinton defended her stance, and argued: “Nobody stood up to Assad and removed him and we have had a far greater disaster in Syria.”
Earlier, Sanders also pointed to Clinton’s support for the Iraq war, as well as “virtually every disastrous trade agreement,” in challenging her “judgment” to lead.
However, Clinton fired back, pointing to an editorial board meeting Sanders had with the New York Daily News where he seemed to struggle to explain his plan to break up the banks and various foreign policy positions.
“He could not explain how” he would break up the banks, Clinton said. She defended her own judgment and said: “I think you need to have the judgment on day one to be both president and commander-in-chief.”
While the tone was tougher than past face-offs, the candidates hit several familiar themes. Clinton suggested Sanders is too closely aligned with the gun industry. Sanders knocked Clinton for not releasing transcripts of her past paid speeches (while saying he would soon release a new batch of tax returns).
On that point, Sanders said that despite the financial industry-fueled recession, “Secretary Clinton was busy giving speeches to Goldman Sachs for $225,000 a speech.”
Clinton, though, denied that any of that money influenced her decisions in office. Further, she said, “I stood up against behaviors of the banks when I was a senator.”
Sanders gave a sarcastic retort: “Oh my goodness. They must have been really crushed by this.”
As he did on the minimum wage, Sanders also seemed to accuse Clinton of shifting her position when it came to Social Security taxes, though Clinton again claimed she’s been consistent.
Sanders has been on an election roll lately, winning seven of the last eight state contests, most recently in Wyoming over the weekend. On stage Thursday, he touted his “landslide victories” in recent contests.
But analysts note the primary map could soon be turning back in the front-runner’s favor, not only in New York but other Eastern primary states.
With the stakes getting ever-higher, the tone of the contest had sharpened well before Thursday’s debate. Sanders recently alleged Clinton may not be qualified for president, before walking back the remark. And the Clinton campaign has criticized Sanders for the aggressive efforts by some of his supporters to persuade so-called superdelegates to back the Vermont senator.
Superdelegates are elected officials and other party insiders free to support whomever they want. Most of them are siding with Clinton, giving her an even wider delegate lead. But Clinton noted Thursday night that she holds the pledged delegate lead as well.
Going into the Empire State primary on Tuesday, Clinton so far has held the lead in most polls. Clinton spent eight years as a New York senator.
But Sanders, a Vermont senator who was born in Brooklyn, has been touting his local roots as he seeks to upset Clinton in the state.
While Sanders is on a winning streak in primaries and caucuses, he desperately needs a big victory in New York if he hopes to cut into Clinton's delegate lead and slow her march to the nomination. To date, Clinton has accumulated 1,758 total delegates, compared with Sanders’ 1,069. It takes 2,383 to win.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
oCm4b4VwZ5Swmeru
|
|
national_security
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/15/trump-pulls-security-clearance-of-ex-cia-director-brennan-778791
|
Trump pulls security clearance of ex-CIA Director John Brennan
|
2018-08-15
|
Rebecca Morin, Annie Karni, Burgess Everett
|
Trump pulls security clearance of ex-CIA Director John Brennan ‘ Mr . Brennan ’ s lying and recent conduct characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation ’ s most closely held secrets . ’
President Donald Trump on Wednesday revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan , who has become a harsh critic of the president , and appeared to be targeting others who have disagreed with the administration .
“ Mr . Brennan ’ s lying and recent conduct characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation ’ s most closely held secrets and facilities , the very aim of our adversaries which is to sow division and chaos , ” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said , reading a statement from Trump while briefing reporters on Wednesday .
“ Mr . Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations — wild outbursts on the internet and television — about this Administration , “ the president ‘ s statement continued .
In addition , Sanders said , the administration is evaluating clearances for former FBI Director James Comey , former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden , former national security adviser Susan Rice , former FBI attorney Lisa Page , former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates , former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok , former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , whose security clearance was deactivated after he was fired earlier this year , and Bruce Ohr , who is still in the Justice Department although he was demoted from associate deputy attorney general .
“ More broadly , the issue of Mr. Brennan ’ s security clearance raises larger questions about the practice of former officials maintaining access to our nation ’ s most sensitive secrets long after their time in government has ended , ” Sanders said .
“ This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics , ” he wrote . “ It should gravely worry all Americans , including intelligence professionals , about the cost of speaking out . My principles are worth far more than clearances . I will not relent , '' he wrote .
This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics . It should gravely worry all Americans , including intelligence professionals , about the cost of speaking out . My principles are worth far more than clearances . I will not relent . https : //t.co/TNzOxhP9ux — John O. Brennan ( @ JohnBrennan ) August 15 , 2018
In a subsequent phone interview on MSNBC , Brennan added that if the president believed that the action would lead the former CIA director “ to just go away and be quiet , he is very badly mistaken. “
“ I ‘ ve seen this type of behavior and actions on the part of foreign tyrants and despots and autocrats during my CIA and national security career , ” he said . “ I never thought I would see it here in the United States . And so I do believe that all Americans really need to take stock of what is happening right now in our government , and how abnormal and how irresponsible and how dangerous these actions are. “
Brennan also said he was not informed by the government that his security clearance was revoked , but instead learned it from a friend who called when Sanders was delivering the president ’ s statement .
The White House last month announced that it was looking into revoking security clearances for the individuals Sanders listed , with the exception of Yates , Strzok , Page and Ohr , whose names were added on Wednesday .
Trump has over the past couple of days dug into Strzok , who was fired from the FBI on Friday , and Ohr .
Ohr , a senior Justice Department official , has come under scrutiny after it was revealed he had contact during the 2016 election cycle with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson and former British spy Christopher Steele , who compiled a dossier that described a complex conspiracy of Trump and his campaign working with the Kremlin to influence the outcome of the presidential election . Trump has denied the dossier ‘ s findings . Ohr 's wife , Nellie , also worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 election .
The Justice Department declined to comment on Ohr 's security clearance .
“ Security clearances for those who still have them may be revoked , and those who have already lost their security clearance may not be able to have it reinstated , ” Sanders said .
Clapper on Wednesday said during an interview with CNN that he had not had any access to current intelligence since he resigned in January 2017 .
Playbook PM Sign up for our must-read newsletter on what 's driving the afternoon in Washington . Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply .
The former intelligence chief has been a harsh critic of Trump and has feuded with the president , who has characterized the FBI ’ s use of an informant as the Justice Department ‘ s spying on his presidential campaign . Clapper , however , has countered that Russian efforts were the subject of intelligence operations , not Trump ‘ s campaign .
Clapper said that losing his clearance wouldn ’ t have any “ immediate substantive impact “ on him , and that he would continue to speak out against the president .
“ Will the republic stand or fall on whether John retains his access to classified information , or mine or any others that were named ? Of course not , “ he said . “ The larger issue here , to me , throughout has been infringement on First Amendment rights . And I think people ought to think seriously about that. “
Comey last month said he no longer had a security clearance , and Hayden also said on Twitter that he did not go back for classified briefings but would occasionally be asked to “ offer a view on something . ”
Comey , who was fired last year , documented a conversation with Trump in which he says the president asked him to to let go of an FBI investigation into former Trump campaign adviser Michael Flynn , who also served briefly as the president ’ s national security adviser . Since the release of Comey ‘ s memo , special counsel Robert Mueller has broadened his Russia investigation to include whether Trump tried to obstruct justice . Trump has long called the Mueller inquiry a “ witch hunt. “
Susan Gordon , principal deputy director of national intelligence , told ███ on Wednesday that she didn ’ t know whether the White House consulted National Intelligence Director Dan Coats before it announced the decision to revoke Brennan ’ s clearance .
“ But it is a presidential decision , ” she said . “ That authority is his ; he can make the decisions . I don ’ t know whether we were consulted or not , but whether we were or not , it ’ s an executive decision for him to make . ”
She pointed out that security clearances have traditionally been important tools for the U.S. intelligence community , allowing agencies to rely the experiences of former department chiefs .
“ There ’ s a whole range of people that we rely on , including our formers who have those clearances to help us be better at what we do and know , ” she said on the sidelines of a Defense Intelligence Agency conference in Omaha , Nebraska .
Gordon said she didn ’ t have any indication whether the removal of Brennan ’ s clearances was part of a “ larger trend . ”
She stressed , however , that former agency leaders — including those working for private companies and those still in government — remain important parts of the intelligence community . And , she said , former officials with clearances should maintain certain standards to keep those clearances .
Conservatives have over the past couple of weeks pushed for Brennan ’ s security to be removed .
Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) in June said he spoke to the president about that very issue , and Fox News host Tucker Carlson also called for Brennan ’ s clearance to be removed after he reported he still had it .
On Wednesday , the Senate majority whip , John Cornyn ( R-Texas ) , who is on the Intelligence Committee , said it was “ entirely appropriate ” for Trump to take action against Brennan .
But Sen. Bob Corker ( R-Tenn. ) , the retiring chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee , said : “ Without having some kind of tangible reasons for doing so , which there may be that I ’ m not aware of , I don ’ t like it at all . It just feels like sort of a … banana republic kind of thing , ”
Brennan , in the MSNBC interview on Wednesday , said he believed that Trump was concerned about the criticism Brennan has been voicing publicly and was trying to diminish his integrity .
“ I must tell you that Mr. Trump ‘ s dishonesty , his lack of integrity , his nastiness , mean-spiritedness , the types of things that he has just tweeted out the past 72 hours , the terms that he uses , this is not what I think of an American president , nor of America , “ Brennan said . “ We 're better than this . We have to be better than this . We have been a shining example to the world , and Mr. Trump is letting this country down. “
In addition , Brennan criticized Trump ‘ s attacks on Mueller and his investigation . He added that although he did not know any details from the inquiry , he believed that the president ’ s recent attacks were a result of the “ closer magnification of some of the things that those around him have been involved in “ through the probe .
“ I know some things that the Russians were involved in , but I certainly don ‘ t know all the things that Mr. Trump has been involved in over the years , “ he said . “ I do not pretend to have that knowledge . He is the one . But clearly his actions are those of somebody who is seeking to prevent the full light of day being shone upon his past. “
Mueller ‘ s investigation should have a conclusion , Brennan said , and added that the American public should accept the findings no matter what .
“ I think at the end of the day we all should accept the findings of that investigative team , “ he said . “ And if they exonerate everybody , including Mr. Trump , from any wrongdoing whatsoever , we should accept that , because that is what the rule of law demands and what our system of justice requires. “
John McLaughlin , a former acting director of the CIA , who was not listed as having his clearance under review but has criticized the president 's policies in the past , said on Wednesday that he thought the choice to revoke the clearance was to “ silence critics. “
“ This really has the feel of someone simply trying to do two things : silence critics and also distract from another damaging political event that ‘ s going on with Omarosa , “ he said during a phone interview on MSNBC , referring to former presidential adviser Omarosa Manigault Newman , whose new book includes scathing criticism of Trump and his administration .
|
Trump pulls security clearance of ex-CIA Director John Brennan ‘Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets.’
President Donald Trump on Wednesday revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, who has become a harsh critic of the president, and appeared to be targeting others who have disagreed with the administration.
“Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets and facilities, the very aim of our adversaries which is to sow division and chaos,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, reading a statement from Trump while briefing reporters on Wednesday.
Story Continued Below
“Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations — wild outbursts on the internet and television — about this Administration,“ the president‘s statement continued.
In addition, Sanders said, the administration is evaluating clearances for former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser Susan Rice, former FBI attorney Lisa Page, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose security clearance was deactivated after he was fired earlier this year, and Bruce Ohr, who is still in the Justice Department although he was demoted from associate deputy attorney general.
“More broadly, the issue of Mr. Brennan’s security clearance raises larger questions about the practice of former officials maintaining access to our nation’s most sensitive secrets long after their time in government has ended,” Sanders said.
Brennan later responded on Twitter.
“This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics,” he wrote. “It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out. My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent," he wrote.
This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out. My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent. https://t.co/TNzOxhP9ux — John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) August 15, 2018
In a subsequent phone interview on MSNBC, Brennan added that if the president believed that the action would lead the former CIA director “to just go away and be quiet, he is very badly mistaken.“
“I‘ve seen this type of behavior and actions on the part of foreign tyrants and despots and autocrats during my CIA and national security career,” he said. “I never thought I would see it here in the United States. And so I do believe that all Americans really need to take stock of what is happening right now in our government, and how abnormal and how irresponsible and how dangerous these actions are.“
Brennan also said he was not informed by the government that his security clearance was revoked, but instead learned it from a friend who called when Sanders was delivering the president’s statement.
The White House last month announced that it was looking into revoking security clearances for the individuals Sanders listed, with the exception of Yates, Strzok, Page and Ohr, whose names were added on Wednesday.
Trump has over the past couple of days dug into Strzok, who was fired from the FBI on Friday, and Ohr.
Ohr, a senior Justice Department official, has come under scrutiny after it was revealed he had contact during the 2016 election cycle with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson and former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled a dossier that described a complex conspiracy of Trump and his campaign working with the Kremlin to influence the outcome of the presidential election. Trump has denied the dossier‘s findings. Ohr's wife, Nellie, also worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 election.
The Justice Department declined to comment on Ohr's security clearance.
“Security clearances for those who still have them may be revoked, and those who have already lost their security clearance may not be able to have it reinstated,” Sanders said.
Clapper on Wednesday said during an interview with CNN that he had not had any access to current intelligence since he resigned in January 2017.
Playbook PM Sign up for our must-read newsletter on what's driving the afternoon in Washington. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The former intelligence chief has been a harsh critic of Trump and has feuded with the president, who has characterized the FBI’s use of an informant as the Justice Department‘s spying on his presidential campaign. Clapper, however, has countered that Russian efforts were the subject of intelligence operations, not Trump‘s campaign.
Clapper said that losing his clearance wouldn’t have any “ immediate substantive impact“ on him, and that he would continue to speak out against the president.
“Will the republic stand or fall on whether John retains his access to classified information, or mine or any others that were named? Of course not,“ he said. “The larger issue here, to me, throughout has been infringement on First Amendment rights. And I think people ought to think seriously about that.“
Comey last month said he no longer had a security clearance, and Hayden also said on Twitter that he did not go back for classified briefings but would occasionally be asked to “offer a view on something.”
Comey, who was fired last year, documented a conversation with Trump in which he says the president asked him to to let go of an FBI investigation into former Trump campaign adviser Michael Flynn, who also served briefly as the president’s national security adviser. Since the release of Comey‘s memo, special counsel Robert Mueller has broadened his Russia investigation to include whether Trump tried to obstruct justice. Trump has long called the Mueller inquiry a “witch hunt.“
Susan Gordon, principal deputy director of national intelligence, told POLITICO on Wednesday that she didn’t know whether the White House consulted National Intelligence Director Dan Coats before it announced the decision to revoke Brennan’s clearance.
“But it is a presidential decision,” she said. “That authority is his; he can make the decisions. I don’t know whether we were consulted or not, but whether we were or not, it’s an executive decision for him to make.”
She pointed out that security clearances have traditionally been important tools for the U.S. intelligence community, allowing agencies to rely the experiences of former department chiefs.
“There’s a whole range of people that we rely on, including our formers who have those clearances to help us be better at what we do and know,” she said on the sidelines of a Defense Intelligence Agency conference in Omaha, Nebraska.
Gordon said she didn’t have any indication whether the removal of Brennan’s clearances was part of a “larger trend.”
She stressed, however, that former agency leaders — including those working for private companies and those still in government — remain important parts of the intelligence community. And, she said, former officials with clearances should maintain certain standards to keep those clearances.
“Yes, that’s important as well,” she said.
Conservatives have over the past couple of weeks pushed for Brennan’s security to be removed.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in June said he spoke to the president about that very issue, and Fox News host Tucker Carlson also called for Brennan’s clearance to be removed after he reported he still had it.
On Wednesday, the Senate majority whip, John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is on the Intelligence Committee, said it was “entirely appropriate” for Trump to take action against Brennan.
But Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the retiring chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said: “Without having some kind of tangible reasons for doing so, which there may be that I’m not aware of, I don’t like it at all. It just feels like sort of a … banana republic kind of thing,”
Brennan, in the MSNBC interview on Wednesday, said he believed that Trump was concerned about the criticism Brennan has been voicing publicly and was trying to diminish his integrity.
“I must tell you that Mr. Trump‘s dishonesty, his lack of integrity, his nastiness, mean-spiritedness, the types of things that he has just tweeted out the past 72 hours, the terms that he uses, this is not what I think of an American president, nor of America,“ Brennan said. “We're better than this. We have to be better than this. We have been a shining example to the world, and Mr. Trump is letting this country down.“
In addition, Brennan criticized Trump‘s attacks on Mueller and his investigation. He added that although he did not know any details from the inquiry, he believed that the president’s recent attacks were a result of the “closer magnification of some of the things that those around him have been involved in“ through the probe.
“I know some things that the Russians were involved in, but I certainly don‘t know all the things that Mr. Trump has been involved in over the years,“ he said. “I do not pretend to have that knowledge. He is the one. But clearly his actions are those of somebody who is seeking to prevent the full light of day being shone upon his past.“
Mueller‘s investigation should have a conclusion, Brennan said, and added that the American public should accept the findings no matter what.
“I think at the end of the day we all should accept the findings of that investigative team,“ he said. “And if they exonerate everybody, including Mr. Trump, from any wrongdoing whatsoever, we should accept that, because that is what the rule of law demands and what our system of justice requires.“
John McLaughlin, a former acting director of the CIA, who was not listed as having his clearance under review but has criticized the president's policies in the past, said on Wednesday that he thought the choice to revoke the clearance was to “silence critics.“
“This really has the feel of someone simply trying to do two things: silence critics and also distract from another damaging political event that‘s going on with Omarosa,“ he said during a phone interview on MSNBC, referring to former presidential adviser Omarosa Manigault Newman, whose new book includes scathing criticism of Trump and his administration.
Martin Matishak and Burgess Everett contributed to this report.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
e7msNqSwMO2KUHCz
|
republican_party
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/eric-early-adam-schiffs-2020-republican-challenger
|
Adam Schiff's 2020 Republican challenger vows to propel 'the viper into retirement'
|
Hollie Mckay, War Crimes
|
He ’ s an unabashedly proud , MAGA hat-toting attorney in the left-leaning throngs of Los Angeles . And he has high hopes of removing Rep. Adam Schiff from his seat in California ’ s 28th congressional district in 2020 .
Meet Eric Early , Schiff ’ s leading Republican challenger , who minces no words when it comes to his desire to send the longstanding Democratic “ viper into retirement and help give Congress back to the people . ”
FORMER CIA WHISTLEBLOWER BLASTS MEDIA , DISMISSES UNNAMED OFFICIAL WHO FLAGGED TRUMP-UKRAINE CALL
“ Schiff could not care less about our district . He has been a carpetbagger since day one , having moved here from somewhere else to run against the then incumbent . In Schiff ’ s over 20 years representing the district , his record is appalling , ” Early told Fox News . “ He has done virtually nothing for the District while focusing almost exclusively on staying in power and trying to gain higher office . ”
And as impeachment talks gain momentum in D.C – with Schiff in the limelight as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee amplifying concerns that Trump may have violated laws in his talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – Early contends that there are questionable Schiff practices at play . But defeating Schiff in 2020 will be a tall order : Schiff won his race with nearly 78.4 percent of the vote in 2018 .
“ I refer to him ( Schiff ) as a National Disgrace . It is becoming more and more evident that Schiff and his team likely clandestinely worked together with a conflicted and tremendously biased deep state Trump hater to orchestrate this latest outrage to try to destroy a duly elected American president , ” he continued . “ That in and of itself should disqualify Schiff from overseeing the so-called ‘ inquiry . ’ ”
Holding nothing back when it comes to his condemnation and zingers of his political opponent , Early has also accused Schiff of being something akin to a media hog , which was illuminated by his involvement in the two-year-long Russia investigation .
“ Schiff appeared on national news shows over 400 times during that period , repeatedly telling every American how he had and had seen evidence that made it clear the president had colluded with the Russians to win the election , ” Early continued . “ As the then-ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee , Schiff made the world believe that his knowledge was based on among other things , his access to classified information . Now Schiff never says the word Russia , but his two straight years of lies will forever be left in the public ’ s consciousness . ”
In June , the L.A power attorney for more than 25 years made the bold move to throw his hat into the ring – having become fed up with Schiff ’ s continuous “ lies on TV. ” But it is not Early ’ s first foray into politics . He ran unsuccessfully for California attorney general in 2018 but claims that the experience prepared him for a run against Schiff .
“ I spoke to people all around California , met many amazing people , received almost a million votes statewide , and thoroughly enjoyed campaigning , ” he said . “ My legal background has been great preparation for this role . I have practiced with some of the best and brightest attorneys . I have advocated for my clients in courts throughout the nation . I am a fighter and a debater , and I want to fight for my District . ”
REP. ILHAN OMAR FACES CHALLENGE FROM CHRIS KELLEY , A CELEBRATED IRAQ WAR VETERAN
In his current practice , Early is leading a lawsuit against the Santa Barbara Unified School District on behalf of a group of local citizens . They ’ re suing “ for hiring an organization of social justice warriors who are indoctrinating the teachers and students with a radical far-left , America-hating , and racially divisive agenda , ” he said .
“ I ’ m hearing from parents around the country experiencing the same things in their schools , ” Early conjectured . “ If I am elected to Congress , I plan to do whatever I can to stop this creeping social justice warrior takeover of our nation ’ s public schools . ”
A first-generation American , whose father and mother immigrated to the U.S in the 1930s from Austria and Poland , respectively , with his dad then joining the U.S. Marine Corps and earning a Purple Heart for his endeavors in the Korean War , much of Early ’ s views on American values were shaped by childhood . A childhood steeped in patriotism and wedged in a middle-class neighborhood alongside Jewish , Italian and Irish families .
“ Reagan was strong , believed in a strong America , had firm convictions and beliefs , was willing to suffer the slings and arrows of maintaining his convictions , ” Early noted . “ Like President Trump , he knew and well understood the evils of communism and socialism and how they could destroy what makes America great . ”
He rattled off the issues he plans to highlight in the campaign against Schiff .
“ Schiff has never said one word about the endless increase in our taxes being foisted on us by his friends in Sacramento . Schiff has also ignored the tremendous burdens caused by illegal immigration . Crime is on the rise , ” Early added . “ Prisons are being emptied . Law enforcement is not being given the tools it needs or proper support from those in power . Homelessness , severe mental illness , failing public schools , and education , etc . The problems are many , deep , and serious . ”
A spokesman for Schiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
|
He’s an unabashedly proud, MAGA hat-toting attorney in the left-leaning throngs of Los Angeles. And he has high hopes of removing Rep. Adam Schiff from his seat in California’s 28th congressional district in 2020.
Meet Eric Early, Schiff’s leading Republican challenger, who minces no words when it comes to his desire to send the longstanding Democratic “viper into retirement and help give Congress back to the people.”
FORMER CIA WHISTLEBLOWER BLASTS MEDIA, DISMISSES UNNAMED OFFICIAL WHO FLAGGED TRUMP-UKRAINE CALL
“Schiff could not care less about our district. He has been a carpetbagger since day one, having moved here from somewhere else to run against the then incumbent. In Schiff’s over 20 years representing the district, his record is appalling,” Early told Fox News. “He has done virtually nothing for the District while focusing almost exclusively on staying in power and trying to gain higher office.”
And as impeachment talks gain momentum in D.C – with Schiff in the limelight as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee amplifying concerns that Trump may have violated laws in his talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – Early contends that there are questionable Schiff practices at play. But defeating Schiff in 2020 will be a tall order: Schiff won his race with nearly 78.4 percent of the vote in 2018.
“I refer to him (Schiff) as a National Disgrace. It is becoming more and more evident that Schiff and his team likely clandestinely worked together with a conflicted and tremendously biased deep state Trump hater to orchestrate this latest outrage to try to destroy a duly elected American president,” he continued. “That in and of itself should disqualify Schiff from overseeing the so-called ‘inquiry.’”
Holding nothing back when it comes to his condemnation and zingers of his political opponent, Early has also accused Schiff of being something akin to a media hog, which was illuminated by his involvement in the two-year-long Russia investigation.
“Schiff appeared on national news shows over 400 times during that period, repeatedly telling every American how he had and had seen evidence that made it clear the president had colluded with the Russians to win the election,” Early continued. “As the then-ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff made the world believe that his knowledge was based on among other things, his access to classified information. Now Schiff never says the word Russia, but his two straight years of lies will forever be left in the public’s consciousness.”
In June, the L.A power attorney for more than 25 years made the bold move to throw his hat into the ring – having become fed up with Schiff’s continuous “lies on TV.” But it is not Early’s first foray into politics. He ran unsuccessfully for California attorney general in 2018 but claims that the experience prepared him for a run against Schiff.
“I spoke to people all around California, met many amazing people, received almost a million votes statewide, and thoroughly enjoyed campaigning,” he said. “My legal background has been great preparation for this role. I have practiced with some of the best and brightest attorneys. I have advocated for my clients in courts throughout the nation. I am a fighter and a debater, and I want to fight for my District.”
REP. ILHAN OMAR FACES CHALLENGE FROM CHRIS KELLEY, A CELEBRATED IRAQ WAR VETERAN
In his current practice, Early is leading a lawsuit against the Santa Barbara Unified School District on behalf of a group of local citizens. They’re suing “for hiring an organization of social justice warriors who are indoctrinating the teachers and students with a radical far-left, America-hating, and racially divisive agenda,” he said.
“I’m hearing from parents around the country experiencing the same things in their schools,” Early conjectured. “If I am elected to Congress, I plan to do whatever I can to stop this creeping social justice warrior takeover of our nation’s public schools.”
A first-generation American, whose father and mother immigrated to the U.S in the 1930s from Austria and Poland, respectively, with his dad then joining the U.S. Marine Corps and earning a Purple Heart for his endeavors in the Korean War, much of Early’s views on American values were shaped by childhood. A childhood steeped in patriotism and wedged in a middle-class neighborhood alongside Jewish, Italian and Irish families.
He describes himself as a “Reagan Conservative.”
“Reagan was strong, believed in a strong America, had firm convictions and beliefs, was willing to suffer the slings and arrows of maintaining his convictions,” Early noted. “Like President Trump, he knew and well understood the evils of communism and socialism and how they could destroy what makes America great.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
He rattled off the issues he plans to highlight in the campaign against Schiff.
“Schiff has never said one word about the endless increase in our taxes being foisted on us by his friends in Sacramento. Schiff has also ignored the tremendous burdens caused by illegal immigration. Crime is on the rise,” Early added. “Prisons are being emptied. Law enforcement is not being given the tools it needs or proper support from those in power. Homelessness, severe mental illness, failing public schools, and education, etc. The problems are many, deep, and serious.”
A spokesman for Schiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
4Kra7Zzr9dZpI23X
|
|
world
|
Al Jazeera
| 00
|
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/gunman-fires-anti-caa-protest-rally-delhi-witness-200130090019293.html
|
Gunman fires at anti-CAA protest rally in Delhi
|
A gunman has fired at a protest rally against India 's new citizenship law near the Jamia Millia Islamia ( JMI ) university in capital New Delhi , witnesses and officials said .
The alleged assailant , identified by the police as a 17-year-old teenager , brandished a single-barrel weapon and shouted slogans against the protesters before firing at them , wounding a JMI student on Thursday .
The deputy commissioner of police in Southeast Delhi said the teenage suspect has been arrested and an investigation was being conducted into the incident .
`` He [ the gunman ] was shouting , 'Delhi Police Zindabad ' [ long live Delhi police ] and 'Who wants Aazadi [ freedom ] , come , I 'll shoot you ' , '' said witness Nazim Qazi , who was also part of the protest .
`` And then he shot one fire . A student named Shadab was hurt and has been taken to the nearby Holy Family hospital , '' he added .
Another witness told ███ that JMI students were marching towards the memorial of Mahatma Gandhi , the leader of India 's independence struggle , when the attack happened .
The march was organised to coincide with the death anniversary of Gandhi , who was shot dead by a member of the Hindu far right , Nathuram Godse , in 1948 .
On the day Gandhiji was shot dead by Godse ! https : //t.co/4djBajqfmt — Niha Masih ( @ NihaMasih ) January 30 , 2020
The victim has now been moved to the trauma centre of All India Institute of Medical Sciences ( AIIMS ) in New Delhi , sources said .
A photograph taken by the Reuters news agency showed the suspect , dressed in a black jacket and brandishing a single-barrel weapon , standing metres away from dozens of policemen deployed outside the university , where protesters had gathered for the march .
Witnesses said the assailant shouted slogans against the protesters before firing at them .
`` The police stood nearby , '' Ahmed Zahir , a witness , told Reuters .
Meanwhile , India 's Home Minister Amit Shah posted on Twitter that Delhi Police officials have been ordered to conduct a `` detailed inquiry '' into the incident .
A wounded man is helped after Sharma opened fire during a protest against a new citizenship law outside the Jamia Millia Islamia university in New Delhi [ Danish Siddiqui/Reuters ]
The suspect 's purported Facebook page , now suspended , showed that he called himself a `` Rambhakt '' ( devotee of Hindu god , Lord Ram ) . He was live on Facebook just before the attack , the page showed .
The teenager 's Facebook account also revealed his apparent hatred towards Muslims and his sympathies for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) .
His social media profile suggested he is a member of the far-right Bajrang Dal , the youth wing of the World Hindu Council , which forms a part of what is called the Sangh Parivar ( Sangh Family ) in India .
The Sangh Parivar is named after their parent organisation , the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ( RSS or National Association of Volunteers ) , which draws its inspiration from the German Nazis .
On Thursday , hours before he shot at the JMI student , the suspect made several posts on his Facebook page , in which he threatened the protesters and asked his friends to follow his activities .
`` Shaheen Bagh , tera khel khatm ( your game is over ) , '' read one of his posts , referring to a peaceful protest being led by women in a Muslim-dominated neighbourhood in New Delhi , a stone 's throw from where he incident happened .
In another Facebook post on Thursday , he wrote : `` Meri antim yatra pe mujhe bhagwa me le jaiye aur Jai Shri Ram ke naare hon ( On my final journey , drape me in saffron clothes and chant Hail Lord Ram ) . ''
Protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act ( CAA ) , which fast-tracks Indian citizenship for non-Muslim minorities from three neighbouring countries , have flared since last December .
Prime Minister Narendra Modi 's government insists the law is required to help persecuted minorities who fled to India before 2015 from Afghanistan , Bangladesh and Pakistan .
However , protesters insist the law - as well as a proposed national register for citizens - discriminates against the country 's Muslim minority and violates India 's secular constitution .
In recent days , BJP leaders have called for action against the protesters , whom they call `` anti-nationals '' .
This week , India 's Minister of State for Finance , Anurag Thakur , encouraged supporters at a state election rally in New Delhi to chant slogans , calling for `` the traitors to be shot '' , drawing a reprimand from the country 's election commission .
Last month , Delhi police officers stormed the JMI library and beat students who were protesting against CAA . Dozens of students were injured in the police action that caused a public outcry .
|
A gunman has fired at a protest rally against India's new citizenship law near the Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) university in capital New Delhi, witnesses and officials said.
The alleged assailant, identified by the police as a 17-year-old teenager, brandished a single-barrel weapon and shouted slogans against the protesters before firing at them, wounding a JMI student on Thursday.
More:
The deputy commissioner of police in Southeast Delhi said the teenage suspect has been arrested and an investigation was being conducted into the incident.
'Who wants freedom?'
"He [the gunman] was shouting, 'Delhi Police Zindabad' [long live Delhi police] and 'Who wants Aazadi [freedom], come, I'll shoot you'," said witness Nazim Qazi, who was also part of the protest.
"And then he shot one fire. A student named Shadab was hurt and has been taken to the nearby Holy Family hospital," he added.
Another witness told Al Jazeera that JMI students were marching towards the memorial of Mahatma Gandhi, the leader of India's independence struggle, when the attack happened.
The march was organised to coincide with the death anniversary of Gandhi, who was shot dead by a member of the Hindu far right, Nathuram Godse, in 1948.
On the day Gandhiji was shot dead by Godse! https://t.co/4djBajqfmt — Niha Masih (@NihaMasih) January 30, 2020
The victim has now been moved to the trauma centre of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi, sources said.
A photograph taken by the Reuters news agency showed the suspect, dressed in a black jacket and brandishing a single-barrel weapon, standing metres away from dozens of policemen deployed outside the university, where protesters had gathered for the march.
Witnesses said the assailant shouted slogans against the protesters before firing at them.
"The police stood nearby," Ahmed Zahir, a witness, told Reuters.
Meanwhile, India's Home Minister Amit Shah posted on Twitter that Delhi Police officials have been ordered to conduct a "detailed inquiry" into the incident.
A wounded man is helped after Sharma opened fire during a protest against a new citizenship law outside the Jamia Millia Islamia university in New Delhi [Danish Siddiqui/Reuters]
Who is the suspect?
The suspect's purported Facebook page, now suspended, showed that he called himself a "Rambhakt" (devotee of Hindu god, Lord Ram). He was live on Facebook just before the attack, the page showed.
The teenager's Facebook account also revealed his apparent hatred towards Muslims and his sympathies for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
His social media profile suggested he is a member of the far-right Bajrang Dal, the youth wing of the World Hindu Council, which forms a part of what is called the Sangh Parivar (Sangh Family) in India.
The Sangh Parivar is named after their parent organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS or National Association of Volunteers), which draws its inspiration from the German Nazis.
On Thursday, hours before he shot at the JMI student, the suspect made several posts on his Facebook page, in which he threatened the protesters and asked his friends to follow his activities.
"Shaheen Bagh, tera khel khatm (your game is over)," read one of his posts, referring to a peaceful protest being led by women in a Muslim-dominated neighbourhood in New Delhi, a stone's throw from where he incident happened.
In another Facebook post on Thursday, he wrote: "Meri antim yatra pe mujhe bhagwa me le jaiye aur Jai Shri Ram ke naare hon (On my final journey, drape me in saffron clothes and chant Hail Lord Ram)."
Weeks of protests
Protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which fast-tracks Indian citizenship for non-Muslim minorities from three neighbouring countries, have flared since last December.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government insists the law is required to help persecuted minorities who fled to India before 2015 from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
However, protesters insist the law - as well as a proposed national register for citizens - discriminates against the country's Muslim minority and violates India's secular constitution.
In recent days, BJP leaders have called for action against the protesters, whom they call "anti-nationals".
This week, India's Minister of State for Finance, Anurag Thakur, encouraged supporters at a state election rally in New Delhi to chant slogans, calling for "the traitors to be shot", drawing a reprimand from the country's election commission.
Last month, Delhi police officers stormed the JMI library and beat students who were protesting against CAA. Dozens of students were injured in the police action that caused a public outcry.
Tawqeer Hussain contributed to this report from New Delhi
|
www.aljazeera.com
| 0left
|
HEWqIdTapXQdH4rT
|
||
economic_policy
|
Reason
| 22
|
https://reason.com/archives/2017/04/21/trumps-buy-american-hire-american-policy
|
Trump's 'Buy American. Hire American' Policy Is Dangerous Nonsense
|
2017-04-21
|
David Harsanyi, Brian Doherty, Ronald Bailey, Eric Boehm, Billy Binion, Christian Britschgi, Joe Setyon, Zuri Davis
|
`` We do n't have a level playing field for our workers , '' President Donald Trump told a group of workers in Kenosha , Wisc. , on Tuesday . Truth is , if we were to ever level the playing field with countries like Mexico and China , the average American worker would be making $ 3 an hour and spending their pittance on third-world health care and decrepit housing . Please , do n't level the playing field .
When few things are going your way in politics , though , it 's customary to return to rhetoric that made you successful . So , as Republicans have been unable to push forward on health care reform or tax reform—or anything not named Neil Gorsuch , for that matter—it is unsurprising that Trump would turn to protectionism as a way to bolster his political fortunes .
On Tuesday , the president traveled to a tool manufacturing company in Wisconsin and threw some nationalistic bromides at a blue-collar crowd ( none of which included the words `` I 'm afraid some of your jobs will be taken by robots in the future '' ) , and then signed an executive order ordering the White House to look into ways to curb guest worker visa programs and require government agencies to buy more goods and services from American companies .
For the past two years , over 200,000 foreigners applied for open positions each year . The U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services holds a lottery and gives out 85,000 H-1B visas to high-skilled foreign workers . It 's a program that 's most popular with the tech industry , due to a shortage of Americans trained in science and engineering . I suppose it 's a lot easier to stop talented immigrants from entering the country than to find ways to incentivize Americans to become math majors .
Over the past couple of decades , a high number of immigrants ( which many H-1B visa holders become ) have been part of innovations and start-ups that have created jobs for American workers . Now , even if you do n't believe immigrants add economic value , how exactly is cutting down on high-tech visas going to help rehabilitate the economically depressed areas of the nation ?
Moreover , it seems telling that many of those who are concerned about illegal immigration also seem intent on lowering numbers of legal and potentially high-achieving immigrants from entering the country . The underlying message is that there is a cultural problem , not merely an economic one . `` When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia , I think… '' White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said not long ago in a jumbled explanation of economic nationalism , `` a country is more than an economy . We 're a civic society . ''
The second part of the order cuts down on waivers and exemptions to President Herbert Hoover 's Buy American law . It instructs agencies to use American-made goods and services rather than saving taxpayer dollars or searching out the best deals they can . This is how we incentivize rent-seeking and cronyism . Until a couple of months ago , this is what Republicans used to call `` picking winners and losers . '' If you thought General Motors should n't be bailed out because it could n't compete in a global marketplace , why would you support a state-impelled `` Buy American . Hire American '' when it comes to steel , for example ?
In a political sense , the idea of `` Buy American . Hire American '' is much like fighting climate change : a comforting government-prescribed solution that people embrace in theory but rarely in practice . In the protectionist 's universe , everyone with a Samsung cellphone or a Toyota Camry ( both the best-selling brands in their categories ) would be a traitor to the American worker . In the real world , competition allows us to buy the best products at the cheapest prices—and then buy more things with the money we save . The rules of economics do n't give us waivers for being American .
How damaging will Trump 's trade agenda be ? Who knows ? Despite the protestations of the left—and their eight-year weakening of constitutional restrictions on executive power—Trump 's power has always been curbed by the realities of the job . But protectionism is one area where he could find willing partners in both parties .
Protectionism , after all , is where Trump is most comfortable and effective . It 's the issue that made him , the issue he is most coherent about and the issue with which he has shown the most ideological affinity . Because of its political potency , it has also seen converts , not only among blue-collar Americans but also one-time free-market conservatives .
`` Buy American , '' an appealing and patriotic-sounding solution , is popular across ideological lines . The protectionist impulses of the progressive left—the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wing—closely align with Trump once the cultural aspects are stripped away . In American politics , both parties seem to have warmed to the idea that we can regulate the country into economic growth . The biggest risk is that protectionist rhetoric will be normalized within the GOP , which means there will be two parties with significant factions embracing mercantilism . How long will it be before that kind of support manifests in truly destructive legislation ?
|
"We don't have a level playing field for our workers," President Donald Trump told a group of workers in Kenosha, Wisc., on Tuesday. Truth is, if we were to ever level the playing field with countries like Mexico and China, the average American worker would be making $3 an hour and spending their pittance on third-world health care and decrepit housing. Please, don't level the playing field.
When few things are going your way in politics, though, it's customary to return to rhetoric that made you successful. So, as Republicans have been unable to push forward on health care reform or tax reform—or anything not named Neil Gorsuch, for that matter—it is unsurprising that Trump would turn to protectionism as a way to bolster his political fortunes.
On Tuesday, the president traveled to a tool manufacturing company in Wisconsin and threw some nationalistic bromides at a blue-collar crowd (none of which included the words "I'm afraid some of your jobs will be taken by robots in the future"), and then signed an executive order ordering the White House to look into ways to curb guest worker visa programs and require government agencies to buy more goods and services from American companies.
For the past two years, over 200,000 foreigners applied for open positions each year. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services holds a lottery and gives out 85,000 H-1B visas to high-skilled foreign workers. It's a program that's most popular with the tech industry, due to a shortage of Americans trained in science and engineering. I suppose it's a lot easier to stop talented immigrants from entering the country than to find ways to incentivize Americans to become math majors.
Over the past couple of decades, a high number of immigrants (which many H-1B visa holders become) have been part of innovations and start-ups that have created jobs for American workers. Now, even if you don't believe immigrants add economic value, how exactly is cutting down on high-tech visas going to help rehabilitate the economically depressed areas of the nation?
Moreover, it seems telling that many of those who are concerned about illegal immigration also seem intent on lowering numbers of legal and potentially high-achieving immigrants from entering the country. The underlying message is that there is a cultural problem, not merely an economic one. "When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think…" White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said not long ago in a jumbled explanation of economic nationalism, "a country is more than an economy. We're a civic society."
The second part of the order cuts down on waivers and exemptions to President Herbert Hoover's Buy American law. It instructs agencies to use American-made goods and services rather than saving taxpayer dollars or searching out the best deals they can. This is how we incentivize rent-seeking and cronyism. Until a couple of months ago, this is what Republicans used to call "picking winners and losers." If you thought General Motors shouldn't be bailed out because it couldn't compete in a global marketplace, why would you support a state-impelled "Buy American. Hire American" when it comes to steel, for example?
In a political sense, the idea of "Buy American. Hire American" is much like fighting climate change: a comforting government-prescribed solution that people embrace in theory but rarely in practice. In the protectionist's universe, everyone with a Samsung cellphone or a Toyota Camry (both the best-selling brands in their categories) would be a traitor to the American worker. In the real world, competition allows us to buy the best products at the cheapest prices—and then buy more things with the money we save. The rules of economics don't give us waivers for being American.
How damaging will Trump's trade agenda be? Who knows? Despite the protestations of the left—and their eight-year weakening of constitutional restrictions on executive power—Trump's power has always been curbed by the realities of the job. But protectionism is one area where he could find willing partners in both parties.
Protectionism, after all, is where Trump is most comfortable and effective. It's the issue that made him, the issue he is most coherent about and the issue with which he has shown the most ideological affinity. Because of its political potency, it has also seen converts, not only among blue-collar Americans but also one-time free-market conservatives.
"Buy American," an appealing and patriotic-sounding solution, is popular across ideological lines. The protectionist impulses of the progressive left—the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wing—closely align with Trump once the cultural aspects are stripped away. In American politics, both parties seem to have warmed to the idea that we can regulate the country into economic growth. The biggest risk is that protectionist rhetoric will be normalized within the GOP, which means there will be two parties with significant factions embracing mercantilism. How long will it be before that kind of support manifests in truly destructive legislation?
COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
zMQFK6rD0HwueUWf
|
politics
|
National Review
| 22
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446122/fisagate-monitoring-trump-associates-was-spying-abuse-power
|
The Question Is Not Whether Trump Associates Were Monitored
|
2017-03-27
|
Andrew C. Mccarthy, John Mccormack, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Robert Verbruggen, Tobias Hoonhout, Rich Lowry, Carrie Severino
|
In light of how controversial the matter has become , it ’ s unfortunate to find so much uninformed commentary , especially in cable-TV land , about foreign intelligence collection and its so-called minimization protocols — particularly , the guidelines about revealing , or “ unmasking , ” the identities of Americans whose communications are “ incidentally ” intercepted .
The question arises because of reporting — most recently , the coverage of disclosures last week by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes — that the communications of figures associated with the Trump campaign were intercepted “ incidentally ” by U.S. intelligence agencies because they had some interaction with people connected in some way to foreign powers , principally Russia . The Trump associates subjected to such intelligence-agency monitoring certainly include former national-security adviser Michael Flynn , who was intercepted when speaking with Russia ’ s ambassador to the United States . In addition , the intercepted individuals probably include at least three others : Paul Manafort , who ran the Trump campaign until being ousted in July ( when reports surfaced of payments to him by the former government of Ukraine — a Putin puppet regime ) ; and two others , Roger Stone and Carter Page , who had informal connections to the campaign ( but longstanding ties of varying degree to Trump and Manafort ) .
Nunes ’ s disclosures further suggest that the communications of others associated with Trump ’ s campaign ( perhaps even Trump himself ) were also intercepted . During the press conference , a reporter asked , Nunes , “ Was the president [ i.e. , Trump ] included in that incidental collection — his communication ? ” Nunes responded , “ Yes. ” Based on the little that has been reported , the interception and handling of these communications seems more disturbing because , according to Nunes , they have nothing to do with any known government intelligence investigations of Russia . Unless there is some legitimate connection to foreign activities , the specter of political spying hovers .
The reported intelligence collection efforts raise four separate questions that are too often conflated in the commentary :
1 ) Should the communications of Trump associates ( all of whom are U.S. citizens , so far as we know ) have been intercepted in the first place ?
2 ) Regardless of whether the interception was proper , should the identities of the American citizens have been “ masked ” in order to protect them from , among other things , being smeared as subjects of government investigations ?
3 ) Regardless of whether masking was called for , should the fact that the American citizens ’ communications had been collected and reviewed in connection with investigations — presumably , intelligence investigations , not criminal probes — have been disclosed throughout the “ community ” of U.S. intelligence agencies ?
4 ) Should that fact have been publicly disclosed , including in leaks to the media ? ( Spoiler alert : As my use of “ leaks ” indicates , public disclosure is a major no-no . In fact , it ’ s a felony no-no . )
Let ’ s deal with the easy stuff first . There is nothing wrong with incidentally intercepting the communications of American citizens in the course of legitimate foreign intelligence collection . To analogize to routine law-enforcement activity , when police do physical surveillance on a suspect ( i.e. , when they follow a suspect around ) , or if they tap the suspect ’ s phone pursuant to a court order , they will necessarily observe the activities of innocent ( and not so innocent ) Americans . They can not be expected to close their eyes to those activities ; such observations are not only legal , they are necessary to understand the context of the suspect ’ s behavior . Indeed , one of the objectives of a wiretap in a criminal investigation is to identify unseen members of a conspiracy .
Thus , as long as there was a valid intelligence purpose for targeting the foreign subjects with whom Trump associates interacted , the interception of the associates ’ communications would have been entirely proper .
Of course , any legitimate government power can be abused . If the government ’ s real objective was to intercept the communications not of the foreigners but of the Trump associates , such that the agencies ’ “ targeting ” of the foreigners was merely a pretext ( i.e. , they were monitored only because they were in contact with Trump associates , who were the real targets ) , it could hardly be said that the associates ’ communications were intercepted “ incidentally . ”
If the real objective was to intercept the communications not of the foreigners but of Trump associates , such that the agencies ’ ‘ targeting ’ of the foreigners was merely a pretext , it could hardly be said that the associates ’ communications were intercepted ‘ incidentally . ’
Nevertheless , while such a practice might be deemed abusive , it would not be illegal — the government has nearly limitless latitude to spy on foreigners outside the U.S. , and on agents of foreign powers inside the U.S . If the collection is permissible , it does not become impermissible just because the agents realize it is apt to capture the communications of Americans about whom the government is suspicious . Clearly , if the foreign intelligence “ target ” was really of little or no intelligence interest to the U.S. — if the only real purpose of the collection was to “ incidentally ” seize the communications of Americans — that would be very abusive . And if such a thing were done to obtain a political advantage because the Americans in question were the opposition party , it would be an impeachable abuse of power . But it would not necessarily be illegal .
The same is true of the question about whether the identities of intercepted Americans should have been “ masked ” for their protection . As I ’ ve tried to explain ( here and here ) , unmasking is usually not a violation , because it is a judgment call for which the intelligence agencies have broad discretion .
To go back to our law-enforcement example above , the legitimate objective of investigating a suspect is to understand what he is up to . That ’ s often impossible without understanding whom he is speaking with , and why . If it ’ s a money laundering investigation , the agents might not need to know the name of the pizza baker he calls when it ’ s time to order lunch , but they obviously want the identity of the bank manager he calls to arrange a deposit . In foreign-intelligence collection , it obviously matters whether the American to whom the foreign target is speaking is the pizza man or , say , the chairman of a presidential campaign — or the national-security adviser of an incoming administration .
There is a great deal of gray area between the pizza guy and the American whose identity is manifestly relevant . Thus , the intelligence agency that collects the communication in question has wide discretion to decide whether the intelligence community should know the identity of the intercepted American in order to competently analyze the intelligence .
This is to say that when it comes to the scrutinizing of Americans incidentally caught up in foreign-intelligence collection — i.e. , the interception of their communications , the masking of their identities , the dissemination of their communications to a wide array of government agencies — the question is usually not whether there has been illegality . It is whether political power has been abused .
I have been addressing for years this confusion of legal versus political wrongs . It is a confusion I became intimately familiar with as a prosecutor working on national-security cases that arguably should not have been treated as law-enforcement matters .
For the most part , intelligence collection involving foreign threats to national security is a political issue , not a legal one . Here , we are talking about “ political ” not in the pejorative sense of partisan gamesmanship . We mean “ political ” in the sense of a power that is properly exercised and overseen by the political branches of government , largely outside judicial review . After all , when U.S. intelligence agencies collect intelligence overseas , they are generally acting outside the jurisdiction of American courts , in connection with aliens who have no claim on American legal protections .
Until 1978 , when Congress enacted the constitutionally dubious Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) , there was no judicial role in this area . And for all the attention we have paid to it for the last dozen years , FISA addressed only a small slice of foreign-intelligence collection : It was designed as a modest layer of due-process protection for people inside the United States , especially Americans , who were suspected of acting as agents of a foreign power . Despite FISA , the lion ’ s share of the foreign intelligence mission — namely , the collection of intelligence about people ( including Americans ) who are outside the United States — was still beyond the domain of the judiciary . It remained the constitutional responsibility of the president , with potential abuses left to Congress , not the courts , to rein in .
FISA was designed for the bygone world that existed before the telecommunications revolution . Nowadays , technological advances in communications networks have made national boundaries irrelevant . Government agencies can effortlessly access millions of communications . Foreign-to-foreign communications may pass through American networks . American communications are routinely captured even though foreign communications are targeted .
This telecom revolution has had the unforeseen consequence of pushing more communications into FISA ’ s net . This has been controversial : Sensible people do not want FISA ’ s due-process protections extended to aliens outside the U.S. ; but neither do lawmakers want to be seen as reducing the protections afforded to Americans . So there has been a policy compromise : A much bigger slice of foreign-intelligence collection has nominally been brought under the authority of the FISA court . In reality , however , the FISA court rubber-stamps the collection and relies on executive-branch agencies to carry it out , analyze it , and decide ( based on “ minimization ” instructions crafted by the executive branch ) what incidentally collected American information may be scrutinized and what American identities should be concealed .
That is , the enactment and subsequent expansions of FISA ’ s judicial process have not changed the nature of foreign intelligence gathering . It is still a political national-security function beyond the institutional competence of courts ; it is not really a judicial proceeding , however much sweeping FISA court orders might make it look like one .
Thus , minimization protocols — protections that are afforded to Americans whose communications are incidentally swept up during foreign-intelligence collection — are very executive-friendly . Those who are claiming that it was illegal for the Obama administration to “ incidentally ” intercept the communications of Trump associates , and to unmask the identities of those associates for intelligence-analysis purposes , are almost certainly wrong . If there was any plausible foreign-intelligence purpose behind the collection of these communications — and certainly any activities of Russia that might have an impact on U.S interests would justify an intelligence investigation — the seizure and unmasked analysis of the communications would be lawful .
The same is true of the wide dissemination through the intelligence community of unmasked communications . Again , this is a realm of political judgment , not law : the question of who has a need to know particular intelligence information . That is a judgment our system leaves to the president and the top intelligence officials . So if it was lawful for the executive branch to collect the information in the first place , it is lawful to spread the information to any intelligence agent who might assist in its full understanding and exploitation .
Here , however , is the crux of the matter : To claim that something is technically legal is not to say that it is appropriate . Another analogy from law enforcement : Under federal law , any distribution of illegal narcotics is punishable by up to 20 years ’ imprisonment . But a judge who sentenced a man to 20 years in jail for merely passing a marijuana joint to the person next to him would be grossly abusing his power . Such a judge should be impeached — the fact that the sentence is technically legal is beside the point .
There is a salient difference between technical legality and political propriety . The Obama administration intelligence community ’ s monitoring of Trump associates during the presidential campaign may well have been technically legal . But whether it was an abuse of power hinges on whether the investigation ( s ) that rationalized the monitoring were legitimate . Was there a serious Russian effort to subvert U.S. interests , possibly including the integrity of our electoral process ? Were there suspect dealings between Trump campaign officials and Putin operatives ? Or was Russia just a pretext to spy on the campaign of the opposition party ? Did the Obama administration spread intelligence information to people who did not have a need to know it — including White House officials — in order to facilitate its unauthorized disclosure ?
At the same time that they appear to have been aggressively investigating Trump associates , the FBI and the DOJ bent over backwards to avoid charging Hillary Clinton with felony mishandling of classified information .
Another highly relevant question : Were the government ’ s agencies evenhanded in their approach to the two presidential campaigns ? We now know that there were extensive , potentially corrupt financial dealings between the Clinton Foundation and foreign governments , including Russia . We know that there were business dealings between Clinton campaign chairman ( and former top Obama White House official ) John Podesta and entities connected to the Putin regime . We know , moreover , that , at the same time that they appear to have been aggressively investigating Trump associates , the FBI and Justice Department bent over backwards to avoid charging Hillary Clinton with felony mishandling of classified information , among other potential crimes .
So the question is not just whether Trump associates were properly investigated . It is whether the same investigative standards were applied to the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaign .
Patently , there have been crimes committed in this controversy . Whatever the intelligence community learned through incidental foreign-intelligence collection about Trump ’ s associates and campaign officials was surely classified information . Leaking that information to the media is a serious federal felony . It ought to be investigated aggressively , including by using the grand jury to question under oath the officials who had access to the information and , if necessary , the journalists who published it . Any leakers identified should be prosecuted .
The leaks , however , may be the only actual violations of criminal law .
Still , let ’ s not confuse a dearth of criminal wrongs with a dearth of misconduct . It is possible that the investigation of Trump officials was a massive abuse of power . It is also possible that the investigation was triggered by good-faith concerns about Putin-regime perfidy , and that the connections of Trump associates to Russian interests are scandalous even if they are not illegal , and even if the Left ’ s “ Russia hacked the election ” narrative is a red herring . It is critical for Congress to get to the bottom of these questions , regardless of whether , technically , crimes were committed .
|
Trump at a campaign stop in Tampa, Fla., October 2016. (Reuters photo: Jonathan Ernst)
It’s whether it was done abusively.
In light of how controversial the matter has become, it’s unfortunate to find so much uninformed commentary, especially in cable-TV land, about foreign intelligence collection and its so-called minimization protocols — particularly, the guidelines about revealing, or “unmasking,” the identities of Americans whose communications are “incidentally” intercepted.
The question arises because of reporting — most recently, the coverage of disclosures last week by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes — that the communications of figures associated with the Trump campaign were intercepted “incidentally” by U.S. intelligence agencies because they had some interaction with people connected in some way to foreign powers, principally Russia. The Trump associates subjected to such intelligence-agency monitoring certainly include former national-security adviser Michael Flynn, who was intercepted when speaking with Russia’s ambassador to the United States. In addition, the intercepted individuals probably include at least three others: Paul Manafort, who ran the Trump campaign until being ousted in July (when reports surfaced of payments to him by the former government of Ukraine — a Putin puppet regime); and two others, Roger Stone and Carter Page, who had informal connections to the campaign (but longstanding ties of varying degree to Trump and Manafort).
Advertisement
Advertisement
Nunes’s disclosures further suggest that the communications of others associated with Trump’s campaign (perhaps even Trump himself) were also intercepted. During the press conference, a reporter asked, Nunes, “Was the president [i.e., Trump] included in that incidental collection — his communication?” Nunes responded, “Yes.” Based on the little that has been reported, the interception and handling of these communications seems more disturbing because, according to Nunes, they have nothing to do with any known government intelligence investigations of Russia. Unless there is some legitimate connection to foreign activities, the specter of political spying hovers.
The reported intelligence collection efforts raise four separate questions that are too often conflated in the commentary:
Advertisement
1) Should the communications of Trump associates (all of whom are U.S. citizens, so far as we know) have been intercepted in the first place?
Advertisement
2) Regardless of whether the interception was proper, should the identities of the American citizens have been “masked” in order to protect them from, among other things, being smeared as subjects of government investigations?
3) Regardless of whether masking was called for, should the fact that the American citizens’ communications had been collected and reviewed in connection with investigations — presumably, intelligence investigations, not criminal probes — have been disclosed throughout the “community” of U.S. intelligence agencies?
4) Should that fact have been publicly disclosed, including in leaks to the media? (Spoiler alert: As my use of “leaks” indicates, public disclosure is a major no-no. In fact, it’s a felony no-no.)
Let’s deal with the easy stuff first. There is nothing wrong with incidentally intercepting the communications of American citizens in the course of legitimate foreign intelligence collection. To analogize to routine law-enforcement activity, when police do physical surveillance on a suspect (i.e., when they follow a suspect around), or if they tap the suspect’s phone pursuant to a court order, they will necessarily observe the activities of innocent (and not so innocent) Americans. They cannot be expected to close their eyes to those activities; such observations are not only legal, they are necessary to understand the context of the suspect’s behavior. Indeed, one of the objectives of a wiretap in a criminal investigation is to identify unseen members of a conspiracy.
Advertisement
Thus, as long as there was a valid intelligence purpose for targeting the foreign subjects with whom Trump associates interacted, the interception of the associates’ communications would have been entirely proper.
Advertisement
Of course, any legitimate government power can be abused. If the government’s real objective was to intercept the communications not of the foreigners but of the Trump associates, such that the agencies’ “targeting” of the foreigners was merely a pretext (i.e., they were monitored only because they were in contact with Trump associates, who were the real targets), it could hardly be said that the associates’ communications were intercepted “incidentally.”
If the real objective was to intercept the communications not of the foreigners but of Trump associates, such that the agencies’ ‘targeting’ of the foreigners was merely a pretext, it could hardly be said that the associates’ communications were intercepted ‘incidentally.’
Nevertheless, while such a practice might be deemed abusive, it would not be illegal — the government has nearly limitless latitude to spy on foreigners outside the U.S., and on agents of foreign powers inside the U.S. If the collection is permissible, it does not become impermissible just because the agents realize it is apt to capture the communications of Americans about whom the government is suspicious. Clearly, if the foreign intelligence “target” was really of little or no intelligence interest to the U.S. — if the only real purpose of the collection was to “incidentally” seize the communications of Americans — that would be very abusive. And if such a thing were done to obtain a political advantage because the Americans in question were the opposition party, it would be an impeachable abuse of power. But it would not necessarily be illegal.
The same is true of the question about whether the identities of intercepted Americans should have been “masked” for their protection. As I’ve tried to explain (here and here), unmasking is usually not a violation, because it is a judgment call for which the intelligence agencies have broad discretion.
Advertisement
Advertisement
To go back to our law-enforcement example above, the legitimate objective of investigating a suspect is to understand what he is up to. That’s often impossible without understanding whom he is speaking with, and why. If it’s a money laundering investigation, the agents might not need to know the name of the pizza baker he calls when it’s time to order lunch, but they obviously want the identity of the bank manager he calls to arrange a deposit. In foreign-intelligence collection, it obviously matters whether the American to whom the foreign target is speaking is the pizza man or, say, the chairman of a presidential campaign — or the national-security adviser of an incoming administration.
There is a great deal of gray area between the pizza guy and the American whose identity is manifestly relevant. Thus, the intelligence agency that collects the communication in question has wide discretion to decide whether the intelligence community should know the identity of the intercepted American in order to competently analyze the intelligence.
Advertisement
This is to say that when it comes to the scrutinizing of Americans incidentally caught up in foreign-intelligence collection — i.e., the interception of their communications, the masking of their identities, the dissemination of their communications to a wide array of government agencies — the question is usually not whether there has been illegality. It is whether political power has been abused.
Legal Wrongs versus Political Wrongs
I have been addressing for years this confusion of legal versus political wrongs. It is a confusion I became intimately familiar with as a prosecutor working on national-security cases that arguably should not have been treated as law-enforcement matters.
For the most part, intelligence collection involving foreign threats to national security is a political issue, not a legal one. Here, we are talking about “political” not in the pejorative sense of partisan gamesmanship. We mean “political” in the sense of a power that is properly exercised and overseen by the political branches of government, largely outside judicial review. After all, when U.S. intelligence agencies collect intelligence overseas, they are generally acting outside the jurisdiction of American courts, in connection with aliens who have no claim on American legal protections.
Advertisement
Until 1978, when Congress enacted the constitutionally dubious Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), there was no judicial role in this area. And for all the attention we have paid to it for the last dozen years, FISA addressed only a small slice of foreign-intelligence collection: It was designed as a modest layer of due-process protection for people inside the United States, especially Americans, who were suspected of acting as agents of a foreign power. Despite FISA, the lion’s share of the foreign intelligence mission — namely, the collection of intelligence about people (including Americans) who are outside the United States — was still beyond the domain of the judiciary. It remained the constitutional responsibility of the president, with potential abuses left to Congress, not the courts, to rein in.
FISA was designed for the bygone world that existed before the telecommunications revolution. Nowadays, technological advances in communications networks have made national boundaries irrelevant. Government agencies can effortlessly access millions of communications. Foreign-to-foreign communications may pass through American networks. American communications are routinely captured even though foreign communications are targeted.
This telecom revolution has had the unforeseen consequence of pushing more communications into FISA’s net. This has been controversial: Sensible people do not want FISA’s due-process protections extended to aliens outside the U.S.; but neither do lawmakers want to be seen as reducing the protections afforded to Americans. So there has been a policy compromise: A much bigger slice of foreign-intelligence collection has nominally been brought under the authority of the FISA court. In reality, however, the FISA court rubber-stamps the collection and relies on executive-branch agencies to carry it out, analyze it, and decide (based on “minimization” instructions crafted by the executive branch) what incidentally collected American information may be scrutinized and what American identities should be concealed.
That is, the enactment and subsequent expansions of FISA’s judicial process have not changed the nature of foreign intelligence gathering. It is still a political national-security function beyond the institutional competence of courts; it is not really a judicial proceeding, however much sweeping FISA court orders might make it look like one.
Advertisement
Thus, minimization protocols — protections that are afforded to Americans whose communications are incidentally swept up during foreign-intelligence collection — are very executive-friendly. Those who are claiming that it was illegal for the Obama administration to “incidentally” intercept the communications of Trump associates, and to unmask the identities of those associates for intelligence-analysis purposes, are almost certainly wrong. If there was any plausible foreign-intelligence purpose behind the collection of these communications — and certainly any activities of Russia that might have an impact on U.S interests would justify an intelligence investigation — the seizure and unmasked analysis of the communications would be lawful.
The same is true of the wide dissemination through the intelligence community of unmasked communications. Again, this is a realm of political judgment, not law: the question of who has a need to know particular intelligence information. That is a judgment our system leaves to the president and the top intelligence officials. So if it was lawful for the executive branch to collect the information in the first place, it is lawful to spread the information to any intelligence agent who might assist in its full understanding and exploitation.
Here, however, is the crux of the matter: To claim that something is technically legal is not to say that it is appropriate. Another analogy from law enforcement: Under federal law, any distribution of illegal narcotics is punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment. But a judge who sentenced a man to 20 years in jail for merely passing a marijuana joint to the person next to him would be grossly abusing his power. Such a judge should be impeached — the fact that the sentence is technically legal is beside the point.
There is a salient difference between technical legality and political propriety. The Obama administration intelligence community’s monitoring of Trump associates during the presidential campaign may well have been technically legal. But whether it was an abuse of power hinges on whether the investigation(s) that rationalized the monitoring were legitimate. Was there a serious Russian effort to subvert U.S. interests, possibly including the integrity of our electoral process? Were there suspect dealings between Trump campaign officials and Putin operatives? Or was Russia just a pretext to spy on the campaign of the opposition party? Did the Obama administration spread intelligence information to people who did not have a need to know it — including White House officials — in order to facilitate its unauthorized disclosure?
Treatment of Trump versus Treatment of Clinton
At the same time that they appear to have been aggressively investigating Trump associates, the FBI and the DOJ bent over backwards to avoid charging Hillary Clinton with felony mishandling of classified information.
Another highly relevant question: Were the government’s agencies evenhanded in their approach to the two presidential campaigns? We now know that there were extensive, potentially corrupt financial dealings between the Clinton Foundation and foreign governments, including Russia. We know that there were business dealings between Clinton campaign chairman (and former top Obama White House official) John Podesta and entities connected to the Putin regime. We know, moreover, that, at the same time that they appear to have been aggressively investigating Trump associates, the FBI and Justice Department bent over backwards to avoid charging Hillary Clinton with felony mishandling of classified information, among other potential crimes.
So the question is not just whether Trump associates were properly investigated. It is whether the same investigative standards were applied to the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaign.
Patently, there have been crimes committed in this controversy. Whatever the intelligence community learned through incidental foreign-intelligence collection about Trump’s associates and campaign officials was surely classified information. Leaking that information to the media is a serious federal felony. It ought to be investigated aggressively, including by using the grand jury to question under oath the officials who had access to the information and, if necessary, the journalists who published it. Any leakers identified should be prosecuted.
The leaks, however, may be the only actual violations of criminal law.
Still, let’s not confuse a dearth of criminal wrongs with a dearth of misconduct. It is possible that the investigation of Trump officials was a massive abuse of power. It is also possible that the investigation was triggered by good-faith concerns about Putin-regime perfidy, and that the connections of Trump associates to Russian interests are scandalous even if they are not illegal, and even if the Left’s “Russia hacked the election” narrative is a red herring. It is critical for Congress to get to the bottom of these questions, regardless of whether, technically, crimes were committed.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
NSaXfBkWZixjHpfD
|
elections
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/29/harvard-millennial-survey/18111725/
|
Harvard poll: Millennial voters get their swing back
|
2014-10-29
|
Susan Davis
|
WASHINGTON — Young voters were once one of the pillars of President Obama 's coalition , but the latest national survey of Millennials shows that young voters have soured on the president , are more likely to vote Republican in the midterm elections and are in play for 2016 .
`` In contrast to where we were four years ago , the Millennial vote is very much up for grabs politically , '' said John Della Volpe , the polling director for Harvard 's Institute of Politics . IOP has conducted 26 surveys tracking Millennial opinions since 2000 .
Millennials are on track to vote by about the same margins they did in the 2010 midterm elections , with 26 % forecast as very likely to vote on Nov. 4 . A majority of those likely young voters said they prefer a Republican-led Congress , 51 % -47 % , in contrast to 2010 when a clear majority , 55 % -43 % , preferred a Democratic-led Congress , a significant swing in favor of the GOP .
One takeaway from the poll : Young people who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 are more likely to show up on Election Day than young people who cast a ballot for Obama .
`` Young people , Millennials , are no longer the political outlier that they once were , '' said Della Volpe , meaning their high margins of support for Democrats under Obama has dwindled and young voters have returned to more of a swing voting bloc .
It does n't mean that young voters , defined as 18- to 29-year-olds in this survey , are becoming more Republican , they are just less Democratic in 2014 . The shift suggests that young voters are persuadable and more reflective of the nation at large .
For instance , Millennials approval rating of Obama has fallen to 43 % — which mirrors his standing nationally — and they also heavily disapprove of Republicans in Congress at 23 % , which also mirrors national sentiment .
While Millennials are often cast as a `` post-racial '' generation , political divisions fall just as hard along racial lines when it comes to Obama . Among white voters , Obama 's approval is 31 % , compared to 78 % among African Americans , and 49 % among Hispanics .
Young Republicans are more excited about the midterms than young Democrats , 42 % -30 % .
Obama has seen the most dramatic decline in support from young Hispanics . In Nov. 2009 his approval rating was 81 % compared to 49 % approval today . Failure to pass comprehensive immigration overhaul legislation is likely a factor .
When it comes to social media , white Millennials are more likely to use Facebook , Snapchat and Pinterest while African Americans are more likely than whites to prefer Instagram and Twitter .
While their low participation rates in midterm elections suggests political apathy , Della Volpe said that Millennials are very likely to engage in their communities , just not at the ballot box .
`` The overarching thing that I could tell you about this generation that actually ties all the groups together is this commitment of community service , making the country a better place , '' he said . More young people will volunteer in 2014 than vote .
`` The reason is because they want to see tangible results , and unfortunately what we 've seen over the last several years is our young people have believed that politics does n't have the tangible results that they wish that it did . So therefore they are less likely to be participating , '' Della Volpe said .
|
Immigrant youth leaders marched in Phoenix earlier this year to call on President Obama to end deportations. (Photo: CHERYL EVANS, Cheryl Evans/The Republic)
WASHINGTON — Young voters were once one of the pillars of President Obama's coalition, but the latest national survey of Millennials shows that young voters have soured on the president, are more likely to vote Republican in the midterm elections and are in play for 2016.
"In contrast to where we were four years ago, the Millennial vote is very much up for grabs politically," said John Della Volpe, the polling director for Harvard's Institute of Politics. IOP has conducted 26 surveys tracking Millennial opinions since 2000.
Millennials are on track to vote by about the same margins they did in the 2010 midterm elections, with 26% forecast as very likely to vote on Nov. 4. A majority of those likely young voters said they prefer a Republican-led Congress, 51%-47%, in contrast to 2010 when a clear majority, 55%-43%, preferred a Democratic-led Congress, a significant swing in favor of the GOP.
One takeaway from the poll: Young people who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 are more likely to show up on Election Day than young people who cast a ballot for Obama.
"Young people, Millennials, are no longer the political outlier that they once were," said Della Volpe, meaning their high margins of support for Democrats under Obama has dwindled and young voters have returned to more of a swing voting bloc.
It doesn't mean that young voters, defined as 18- to 29-year-olds in this survey, are becoming more Republican, they are just less Democratic in 2014. The shift suggests that young voters are persuadable and more reflective of the nation at large.
For instance, Millennials approval rating of Obama has fallen to 43% — which mirrors his standing nationally — and they also heavily disapprove of Republicans in Congress at 23%, which also mirrors national sentiment.
The latest survey also found that:
While Millennials are often cast as a "post-racial" generation, political divisions fall just as hard along racial lines when it comes to Obama. Among white voters, Obama's approval is 31%, compared to 78% among African Americans, and 49% among Hispanics.
Young Republicans are more excited about the midterms than young Democrats, 42%-30%.
Obama has seen the most dramatic decline in support from young Hispanics. In Nov. 2009 his approval rating was 81% compared to 49% approval today. Failure to pass comprehensive immigration overhaul legislation is likely a factor.
When it comes to social media, white Millennials are more likely to use Facebook, Snapchat and Pinterest while African Americans are more likely than whites to prefer Instagram and Twitter.
While their low participation rates in midterm elections suggests political apathy, Della Volpe said that Millennials are very likely to engage in their communities, just not at the ballot box.
"The overarching thing that I could tell you about this generation that actually ties all the groups together is this commitment of community service, making the country a better place," he said. More young people will volunteer in 2014 than vote.
"The reason is because they want to see tangible results, and unfortunately what we've seen over the last several years is our young people have believed that politics doesn't have the tangible results that they wish that it did. So therefore they are less likely to be participating," Della Volpe said.
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1u7PGYA
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
d6ariwYyClsa3OBS
|
religion_and_faith
|
New York Post
| 22
|
http://nypost.com/2016/12/07/pope-francis-says-spreading-fake-news-is-a-sin/
|
Pope Francis says spreading fake news is a sin
|
2016-12-07
|
Media that focus on scandals and spread fake news to smear politicians risk becoming like people who have a morbid fascination with excrement , Pope Francis said in an interview published on Wednesday .
Francis told the Belgian Catholic weekly Tertio that spreading disinformation was “ probably the greatest damage that the media can do ” and using communications for this rather than to educate the public amounted to a sin .
Using precise psychological terms , he said scandal-mongering media risked falling prey to coprophilia , or arousal from excrement , and consumers of these media risked coprophagia , or eating excrement .
The Argentine-born pontiff excused himself for using such terms in order to get his point across while answering a question about the correct use of the media .
“ I think the media have to be very clear , very transparent , and not fall into — no offense intended — the sickness of coprophilia , that is , always wanting to cover scandals , covering nasty things , even if they are true , ” he said .
“ And since people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia , a lot of damage can be done . ”
That section of the interview , all of which was distributed to reporters in an Italian translation of the interview in the pope ’ s native Spanish , contained some of the most blunt language the pontiff has ever used about the media .
He also spoke of the danger of using the media to slander political rivals .
“ The means of communication have their own temptations , they can be tempted by slander , and therefore used to slander people , to smear them , this above all in the world of politics , ” he said . “ They can be used as means of defamation… ”
“ No one has a right to do this . It is a sin and it is hurtful , ” he said .
He described disinformation as the greatest harm the media can do because “ it directs opinion in only one direction and omits the other part of the truth , ” he said .
The pope ’ s comments on disinformation followed widespread debate in the United States over whether fake news on the internet might have swayed voters toward Republican candidate Donald Trump .
|
Media that focus on scandals and spread fake news to smear politicians risk becoming like people who have a morbid fascination with excrement, Pope Francis said in an interview published on Wednesday.
Francis told the Belgian Catholic weekly Tertio that spreading disinformation was “probably the greatest damage that the media can do” and using communications for this rather than to educate the public amounted to a sin.
Using precise psychological terms, he said scandal-mongering media risked falling prey to coprophilia, or arousal from excrement, and consumers of these media risked coprophagia, or eating excrement.
The Argentine-born pontiff excused himself for using such terms in order to get his point across while answering a question about the correct use of the media.
“I think the media have to be very clear, very transparent, and not fall into — no offense intended — the sickness of coprophilia, that is, always wanting to cover scandals, covering nasty things, even if they are true,” he said.
“And since people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia, a lot of damage can be done.”
That section of the interview, all of which was distributed to reporters in an Italian translation of the interview in the pope’s native Spanish, contained some of the most blunt language the pontiff has ever used about the media.
He also spoke of the danger of using the media to slander political rivals.
“The means of communication have their own temptations, they can be tempted by slander, and therefore used to slander people, to smear them, this above all in the world of politics,” he said. “They can be used as means of defamation…”
“No one has a right to do this. It is a sin and it is hurtful,” he said.
He described disinformation as the greatest harm the media can do because “it directs opinion in only one direction and omits the other part of the truth,” he said.
The pope’s comments on disinformation followed widespread debate in the United States over whether fake news on the internet might have swayed voters toward Republican candidate Donald Trump.
|
www.nypost.com
| 1right
|
PEfclF9jg0uGUVYn
|
|
us_house
|
Associated Press
| 11
|
https://apnews.com/b8c17dc7ca74ca18c7edf7eb75b8db43
|
House approves $1.5T plan to fix crumbling infrastructure
|
2020-07-01
|
Matthew Daly
|
FILE - In this Jan. 29 , 2020 , file photo , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. , right , shows a note to Rep. Peter DeFazio , D-Ore. , during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington . The House has approved a $ 1.5 trillion plan to rebuild the nation ’ s crumbling infrastructure , pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into projects to fix roads and bridges , upgrade transit systems , expand interstate railways and dredge harbors , ports and channels . ( AP Photo/ Jacquelyn Martin , File )
FILE - In this Jan. 29 , 2020 , file photo , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. , right , shows a note to Rep. Peter DeFazio , D-Ore. , during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington . The House has approved a $ 1.5 trillion plan to rebuild the nation ’ s crumbling infrastructure , pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into projects to fix roads and bridges , upgrade transit systems , expand interstate railways and dredge harbors , ports and channels . ( AP Photo/ Jacquelyn Martin , File )
WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Democratic-controlled House approved a $ 1.5 trillion plan Wednesday to rebuild the nation ’ s crumbling infrastructure , pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into projects to fix roads and bridges , upgrade transit systems , expand interstate railways and dredge harbors , ports and channels .
The bill also authorizes more than $ 100 billion to expand internet access for rural and low-income communities and $ 25 billion to modernize the U.S . Postal Service ’ s infrastructure and operations , including a fleet of electric vehicles .
Lawmakers approved the Moving Forward Act by a 233-188 vote , mostly along party lines . It now goes to the Republican-controlled Senate , where a much narrower bill approved by a key committee has languished for nearly a year . Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , has not attempted to schedule a floor debate and none appears forthcoming .
The idea of “ Infrastructure Week ” in the Trump era has become a long-running inside joke in Washington because there was little action to show for it . Still , Wednesday ’ s vote represented at least a faint signal of momentum for the kind of program that has traditionally held bipartisan appeal .
Democrats hailed the House bill , which goes far beyond transportation to fund schools , health care facilities , public utilities and affordable housing .
Rep. Peter DeFazio , D-Ore. , chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and a sponsor of the legislation , called it a “ transformational investment in American infrastructure that will create millions of jobs . ”
Republicans ridiculed the bill for what they called a Green New Deal-style focus on climate .
“ Instead of seeking bipartisan solutions , this bill adds $ 1.5 trillion to the nation ’ s debt and disguises a heavy-handed and unworkable Green New Deal regime of new requirements as an ‘ infrastructure bill , ’ ” said Missouri Rep. Sam Graves , the top Republican on the transportation panel .
Graves blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats for turning what has traditionally been a bipartisan issue in Congress — infrastructure — into what he called “ a partisan wish list . ”
Republicans scored a rare procedural victory , winning approval of an amendment to block money from the bill going to Chinese state-owned enterprises or companies responsible for building internment camps for the nation ’ s Uighur minority .
The White House promised a veto if the measure reaches the president ’ s desk . In a statement this week , the White House said the bill “ is heavily biased against rural America , ″ is based on debt financing and ” fails to tackle the issue of unnecessary permitting delays ” that have long impeded infrastructure projects .
President Donald Trump has frequently declared his support for infrastructure projects and pledged during the 2016 campaign to spend at least $ 1 trillion to improve infrastructure . Since taking office , Trump has repeatedly called for enactment of an infrastructure package — but those efforts have failed to result in legislation .
Hopes were dashed last year when Trump said he wouldn ’ t deal with Democrats if they continued to investigate him . The House later impeached him .
Trump said after signing a $ 2 trillion coronavirus relief package that low interest rates made it a good time to borrow money to pay for an infrastructure bill . No formal proposal has emerged , although the White House has suggested the next virus response bill could include an infrastructure component .
The centerpiece of the House legislation is a nearly $ 500 billion , 5-year surface transportation plan for roads , bridges and railways . The White House said in its veto threat that the proposal is “ heavily skewed toward programs that would disproportionately benefit America ’ s urban areas. ” The bill would divert money from the Highway Trust Fund to transit and rail projects that “ have seen declining market shares in recent years , ” the White House statement said .
Democrats countered that the bill would rebuild the nation ’ s transportation infrastructure , not only by fixing crumbling roads and bridges , but also by investing in public transit and the national rail network , boosting low- and zero-emission vehicles and cutting carbon pollution that contributes to climate change .
The bill also authorizes $ 130 billion in school infrastructure targeted at high-poverty schools with facilities that endanger the health and safety of students and educators , Democrats said . The schools portion alone could create more than 2 million jobs , they said .
The bill would spend more than $ 100 billion to create or preserve at least 1.8 million affordable homes . “ These investments will help reduce housing inequality , create jobs and stimulate the broader economy , ″ Democrats said in a “ fact sheet ” promoting the bill .
The measure also would upgrade child care facilities and protect access to safe drinking water by investing $ 25 billion in a state revolving fund that ensures communities have clean drinking water and remove dangerous contaminants from local water systems .
Three Republicans voted in favor of the bill : Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Reps. Jeff Van Drew and Chris Smith , both of New Jersey . Two Democrats opposed it : Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Ben McAdams of Utah .
|
FILE - In this Jan. 29, 2020, file photo, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., right, shows a note to Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. The House has approved a $1.5 trillion plan to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into projects to fix roads and bridges, upgrade transit systems, expand interstate railways and dredge harbors, ports and channels. (AP Photo/ Jacquelyn Martin, File)
FILE - In this Jan. 29, 2020, file photo, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., right, shows a note to Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. The House has approved a $1.5 trillion plan to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into projects to fix roads and bridges, upgrade transit systems, expand interstate railways and dredge harbors, ports and channels. (AP Photo/ Jacquelyn Martin, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democratic-controlled House approved a $1.5 trillion plan Wednesday to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into projects to fix roads and bridges, upgrade transit systems, expand interstate railways and dredge harbors, ports and channels.
The bill also authorizes more than $100 billion to expand internet access for rural and low-income communities and $25 billion to modernize the U.S. Postal Service’s infrastructure and operations, including a fleet of electric vehicles.
Lawmakers approved the Moving Forward Act by a 233-188 vote, mostly along party lines. It now goes to the Republican-controlled Senate, where a much narrower bill approved by a key committee has languished for nearly a year. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has not attempted to schedule a floor debate and none appears forthcoming.
ADVERTISEMENT
The idea of “Infrastructure Week” in the Trump era has become a long-running inside joke in Washington because there was little action to show for it. Still, Wednesday’s vote represented at least a faint signal of momentum for the kind of program that has traditionally held bipartisan appeal.
Democrats hailed the House bill, which goes far beyond transportation to fund schools, health care facilities, public utilities and affordable housing.
Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and a sponsor of the legislation, called it a “transformational investment in American infrastructure that will create millions of jobs.”
Republicans ridiculed the bill for what they called a Green New Deal-style focus on climate.
“Instead of seeking bipartisan solutions, this bill adds $1.5 trillion to the nation’s debt and disguises a heavy-handed and unworkable Green New Deal regime of new requirements as an ‘infrastructure bill,’” said Missouri Rep. Sam Graves, the top Republican on the transportation panel.
Graves blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats for turning what has traditionally been a bipartisan issue in Congress — infrastructure — into what he called “a partisan wish list.”
Republicans scored a rare procedural victory, winning approval of an amendment to block money from the bill going to Chinese state-owned enterprises or companies responsible for building internment camps for the nation’s Uighur minority.
The White House promised a veto if the measure reaches the president’s desk. In a statement this week, the White House said the bill “is heavily biased against rural America,″ is based on debt financing and ”fails to tackle the issue of unnecessary permitting delays” that have long impeded infrastructure projects.
ADVERTISEMENT
President Donald Trump has frequently declared his support for infrastructure projects and pledged during the 2016 campaign to spend at least $1 trillion to improve infrastructure. Since taking office, Trump has repeatedly called for enactment of an infrastructure package — but those efforts have failed to result in legislation.
Hopes were dashed last year when Trump said he wouldn’t deal with Democrats if they continued to investigate him. The House later impeached him.
Trump said after signing a $2 trillion coronavirus relief package that low interest rates made it a good time to borrow money to pay for an infrastructure bill. No formal proposal has emerged, although the White House has suggested the next virus response bill could include an infrastructure component.
The centerpiece of the House legislation is a nearly $500 billion, 5-year surface transportation plan for roads, bridges and railways. The White House said in its veto threat that the proposal is “heavily skewed toward programs that would disproportionately benefit America’s urban areas.” The bill would divert money from the Highway Trust Fund to transit and rail projects that “have seen declining market shares in recent years,” the White House statement said.
Democrats countered that the bill would rebuild the nation’s transportation infrastructure, not only by fixing crumbling roads and bridges, but also by investing in public transit and the national rail network, boosting low- and zero-emission vehicles and cutting carbon pollution that contributes to climate change.
The bill also authorizes $130 billion in school infrastructure targeted at high-poverty schools with facilities that endanger the health and safety of students and educators, Democrats said. The schools portion alone could create more than 2 million jobs, they said.
The bill would spend more than $100 billion to create or preserve at least 1.8 million affordable homes. “These investments will help reduce housing inequality, create jobs and stimulate the broader economy,″ Democrats said in a “fact sheet” promoting the bill.
The measure also would upgrade child care facilities and protect access to safe drinking water by investing $25 billion in a state revolving fund that ensures communities have clean drinking water and remove dangerous contaminants from local water systems.
Three Republicans voted in favor of the bill: Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Reps. Jeff Van Drew and Chris Smith, both of New Jersey. Two Democrats opposed it: Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Ben McAdams of Utah.
__
Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this story.
|
www.apnews.com
| 2center
|
DU7YZg9Y6Ldk9Ku2
|
north_korea
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/22/463928126/n-korea-state-media-claim-it-has-u-s-student-in-custody
|
North Korea Claims It Has U.S. Student In Custody
|
2016-01-22
|
Elise Hu
|
North Korean state media said Friday that the country has detained a U.S. student from the University of Virginia for `` anti-republic activities . ''
The state-run agency , KCNA , said the student , Otto Frederick Warmbier , entered North Korea as a tourist but `` with a goal to wreck the foundation of state unity ... under the manipulation of the U.S . government . ''
The U.S. Embassy in Seoul said it was aware of the report .
The University of Virginia 's website lists an undergraduate with that name at the McIntire School of Commerce , the university 's business school .
`` Gareth Johnson of China-based Young Pioneer Tours confirmed Warmbier was on one of its tours and said he had been detained in North Korea on Jan . 2 . ''
Young Pioneer Tours , which says it is `` an adventure tour operator that provides 'budget tours to destinations your mother would rather you stayed away from , ' `` posted this statement on its website :
`` We can confirm that the reports that one of our clients is being detained in Pyongyang are true . Their family have been informed and we are in contact with the Swedish Embassy , ( who act as the protecting interest for U.S citizens ) , who are working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to address the case . We are also assisting the U.S Department of State closely with regards to the situation . In the meantime we would appreciate Otto 's and his family 's privacy being respected and we hope his release can be secured as soon as possible . ''
Curtis Melvin of the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University tells NPR 's All Things Considered that an estimated 5,000 to 7,000 Western tourists visit North Korea every year .
`` North Koreans prioritize tourism , '' he says . `` But they 're sending very mixed signals with how they 're treating people and how they expect them to behave . ''
Many offenses for which tourists are detained `` are really acts that would be considered benign or silly in other countries , '' Melvin says . One American visitor was detained for leaving a Bible in a restaurant , he adds , and another was held for tearing up his tourism visa .
News of the detention came against a backdrop of ongoing diplomatic discussions in the international community about how to deal with North Korea following a nuclear test on Jan. 6 .
U.S. envoys are currently in Beijing , Pyongyang 's traditional ally , to push China for a response that is not `` business as usual , '' according to U.S. and South Korean officials .
`` The objective is very clear , '' U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken said in an interview with NPR . `` It is to sharpen the choice faced by Kim Jong Un and the North Korean regime . The choice between continuing their nuclear programs and facing growing isolation and growing economic pain or , on the contrary , making good on promises they made long ago . ''
|
North Korea Claims It Has U.S. Student In Custody
Enlarge this image toggle caption Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images
North Korean state media said Friday that the country has detained a U.S. student from the University of Virginia for "anti-republic activities."
The state-run agency, KCNA, said the student, Otto Frederick Warmbier, entered North Korea as a tourist but "with a goal to wreck the foundation of state unity ... under the manipulation of the U.S. government."
The U.S. Embassy in Seoul said it was aware of the report.
The University of Virginia's website lists an undergraduate with that name at the McIntire School of Commerce, the university's business school.
Reuters reports:
"Gareth Johnson of China-based Young Pioneer Tours confirmed Warmbier was on one of its tours and said he had been detained in North Korea on Jan. 2."
Young Pioneer Tours, which says it is "an adventure tour operator that provides 'budget tours to destinations your mother would rather you stayed away from,' " posted this statement on its website:
"We can confirm that the reports that one of our clients is being detained in Pyongyang are true. Their family have been informed and we are in contact with the Swedish Embassy, (who act as the protecting interest for U.S citizens), who are working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to address the case. We are also assisting the U.S Department of State closely with regards to the situation. In the meantime we would appreciate Otto's and his family's privacy being respected and we hope his release can be secured as soon as possible."
Curtis Melvin of the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University tells NPR's All Things Considered that an estimated 5,000 to 7,000 Western tourists visit North Korea every year.
"North Koreans prioritize tourism," he says. "But they're sending very mixed signals with how they're treating people and how they expect them to behave."
Many offenses for which tourists are detained "are really acts that would be considered benign or silly in other countries," Melvin says. One American visitor was detained for leaving a Bible in a restaurant, he adds, and another was held for tearing up his tourism visa.
News of the detention came against a backdrop of ongoing diplomatic discussions in the international community about how to deal with North Korea following a nuclear test on Jan. 6.
U.S. envoys are currently in Beijing, Pyongyang's traditional ally, to push China for a response that is not "business as usual," according to U.S. and South Korean officials.
"The objective is very clear," U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken said in an interview with NPR. "It is to sharpen the choice faced by Kim Jong Un and the North Korean regime. The choice between continuing their nuclear programs and facing growing isolation and growing economic pain or, on the contrary, making good on promises they made long ago."
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
dTkoovsDupxpvmQl
|
lgbt_rights
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/03/kentucky-clerk-am-prepared-to-go-to-jail.html?intcmp=hpbt4
|
EXCLUSIVE: Kentucky Clerk: I am prepared to go to jail
|
2015-09-03
|
Todd Starnes, Kim Davis
|
UPDATE : A federal judge has ordered a defiant Kentucky clerk to jail after she refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples .
U.S. District Judge David Bunning told Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis she would be jailed until she complied with his order to issue the licenses . Davis said `` thank you '' before she was led out of the courtroom by a U.S. marshal . She was not in handcuffs .
Bunning also warned deputy clerks around the state that they could suffer the same fate should they refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples .
Davis has refused to issue marriages licenses for two months since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage . She argues that her Christian faith should exempt her from signing the licenses .
I ’ m very steadfast in what I believe . I don ’ t leave my conscience and my Christian soul out in my vehicle and come in here and pretend to be something I ’ m not . It ’ s easy to talk the talk , but can you walk the walk ? — Kim Davis , clerk of Rowan County , Kentucky
Liberty Counsel attorney Mat Staver , who is representing Davis , called the ruling “ outrageous . ”
“ If this country has come to this point where a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for their religious convictions – then we have lost our religious liberty , ” Staver told me .
He said Davis will be fingerprinted and photographed “ just like a criminal . ”
“ This can not be tolerated , ” he said . “ This is ultimately going to spark a huge debate around the country . This is not the kind of country – this is not the America that our founders envisioned . ”
Kim Davis could become the first Christian in America jailed as a result of the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage .
“ I ’ ve weighed the cost and I ’ m prepared to go to jail , I sure am , ” Mrs. Davis told me in an exclusive interview . “ This has never been a gay or lesbian issue for me . This is about upholding the word of God . ”
“ This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes , ” she said . “ This is a fight worth fighting . ”
Davis is the clerk of Rowan County , Ky. – a small patch of earth in the northeastern part of the state . She was elected last November – taking the place of her mother , who held the position for nearly 40 years .
It ’ s fair to say that issuing marriage licenses was something of a family business – until the day the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage .
Davis is a devout Apostolic Christian , and she knew that should gay marriage become legal , she could not and would not sign her name on a same-sex marriage certificate .
“ I would have to either make a decision to stand or I would have to buckle down and leave , ” she said , pondering her choices . “ And if I left , resigned or chose to retire , I would have no voice for God ’ s word .
So when that day came , she issued an edict : No more marriage licenses would be issued in Rowan County . It was a decision that would bring down the wrath of militant LGBT activists and their supporters .
“ They told my husband they were going to burn us down while we slept in our home , ” she said . “ He ’ s been told that he would be beaten up and tied up and made to watch them rape me . I have been told that gays should kill me . ”
Liberty Counsel , the public interest law firm that represents Davis , says forcing her to issue same-sex marriage licenses violates her religious beliefs . But the courts don ’ t seem interested in that argument .
A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses , an appeals court upheld that decision and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene . Should Davis continue to defy the law , she could be fined or sent to jail .
No matter what the court decides , Davis says she will not violate her religious beliefs – and she will not resign her post .
“ I ’ m very steadfast in what I believe , ” she told me . “ I don ’ t leave my conscience and my Christian soul out in my vehicle and come in here and pretend to be something I ’ m not . It ’ s easy to talk the talk , but can you walk the walk ? ”
The mainstream media and the activists have been ruthless . They ’ ve portrayed her as a monster – a right-wing , homophobic hypocrite . She ’ s been smeared by tabloid-style reports on her checkered past . They ’ ve written extensively about her failed marriages .
It ’ s true , she ’ s been married four times . But what ’ s missing in the mainstream media coverage is the context . Her life was radically changed by Jesus Christ in 2011 , and since then she has become a different person .
“ My God in heaven knows every crack , every crevice , every deep place in my heart , ” she said . “ And he knows the thoughts that are in my mind before I even think them . And he has given me such a beautiful and wonderful grace through all of this . ”
She once lived for the devil , but now she lives for God . She ’ s a sinner saved by grace .
“ I had created such a pit of sin for myself with my very own hands , ” she told me .
So how does she handle the reporters and talking heads who call her a hypocrite ?
“ All I can say to them is if they have a sordid past like what I had , they too can receive the cleansing and renewing , and they can start a fresh life and they can be different , ” she said . “ They don ’ t have to remain in their sin , there ’ s hope for tomorrow . ”
Davis did not seek the national spotlight . She had no intention of becoming a spokeswoman for religious liberty , and she bristles at the idea that she is a hero of the faith .
“ I ’ m just a vessel God has chosen for this time and this place , ” she said . “ I ’ m no different than any other Christian . It was my appointed time to stand , and their time will come . ”
|
UPDATE: A federal judge has ordered a defiant Kentucky clerk to jail after she refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
U.S. District Judge David Bunning told Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis she would be jailed until she complied with his order to issue the licenses. Davis said "thank you" before she was led out of the courtroom by a U.S. marshal. She was not in handcuffs.
Bunning also warned deputy clerks around the state that they could suffer the same fate should they refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
Davis has refused to issue marriages licenses for two months since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. She argues that her Christian faith should exempt her from signing the licenses.
I’m very steadfast in what I believe. I don’t leave my conscience and my Christian soul out in my vehicle and come in here and pretend to be something I’m not. It’s easy to talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? — Kim Davis, clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky
Liberty Counsel attorney Mat Staver, who is representing Davis, called the ruling “outrageous.”
“If this country has come to this point where a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for their religious convictions – then we have lost our religious liberty,” Staver told me.
He said Davis will be fingerprinted and photographed “just like a criminal.”
“This cannot be tolerated,” he said. “This is ultimately going to spark a huge debate around the country. This is not the kind of country – this is not the America that our founders envisioned.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kim Davis could become the first Christian in America jailed as a result of the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage.
“I’ve weighed the cost and I’m prepared to go to jail, I sure am,” Mrs. Davis told me in an exclusive interview. “This has never been a gay or lesbian issue for me. This is about upholding the word of God.”
“This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes,” she said. “This is a fight worth fighting.”
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch –a MUST-READ for Conservatives!
Davis is the clerk of Rowan County, Ky. – a small patch of earth in the northeastern part of the state. She was elected last November – taking the place of her mother, who held the position for nearly 40 years.
It’s fair to say that issuing marriage licenses was something of a family business – until the day the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.
Davis is a devout Apostolic Christian, and she knew that should gay marriage become legal, she could not and would not sign her name on a same-sex marriage certificate.
“I would have to either make a decision to stand or I would have to buckle down and leave,” she said, pondering her choices. “And if I left, resigned or chose to retire, I would have no voice for God’s word.
So when that day came, she issued an edict: No more marriage licenses would be issued in Rowan County. It was a decision that would bring down the wrath of militant LGBT activists and their supporters.
“They told my husband they were going to burn us down while we slept in our home,” she said. “He’s been told that he would be beaten up and tied up and made to watch them rape me. I have been told that gays should kill me.”
Liberty Counsel, the public interest law firm that represents Davis, says forcing her to issue same-sex marriage licenses violates her religious beliefs. But the courts don’t seem interested in that argument.
A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, an appeals court upheld that decision and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene. Should Davis continue to defy the law, she could be fined or sent to jail.
No matter what the court decides, Davis says she will not violate her religious beliefs – and she will not resign her post.
“I’m very steadfast in what I believe,” she told me. “I don’t leave my conscience and my Christian soul out in my vehicle and come in here and pretend to be something I’m not. It’s easy to talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?”
The mainstream media and the activists have been ruthless. They’ve portrayed her as a monster – a right-wing, homophobic hypocrite. She’s been smeared by tabloid-style reports on her checkered past. They’ve written extensively about her failed marriages.
It’s true, she’s been married four times. But what’s missing in the mainstream media coverage is the context. Her life was radically changed by Jesus Christ in 2011, and since then she has become a different person.
“My God in heaven knows every crack, every crevice, every deep place in my heart,” she said. “And he knows the thoughts that are in my mind before I even think them. And he has given me such a beautiful and wonderful grace through all of this.”
She once lived for the devil, but now she lives for God. She’s a sinner saved by grace.
“I had created such a pit of sin for myself with my very own hands,” she told me.
So how does she handle the reporters and talking heads who call her a hypocrite?
“All I can say to them is if they have a sordid past like what I had, they too can receive the cleansing and renewing, and they can start a fresh life and they can be different,” she said. “They don’t have to remain in their sin, there’s hope for tomorrow.”
Davis did not seek the national spotlight. She had no intention of becoming a spokeswoman for religious liberty, and she bristles at the idea that she is a hero of the faith.
“I’m just a vessel God has chosen for this time and this place,” she said. “I’m no different than any other Christian. It was my appointed time to stand, and their time will come.”
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
tpX028czJDmkMRGR
|
taxes
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/04/23/good-news-irs-pays-1-million-in-bonuses-to-employees-who-owe-back-taxes-n1828193
|
Good News: IRS Pays $1 Million in Bonuses to Employees Who Owe Back Taxes
|
2014-04-23
|
Guy Benson, Katie Pavlich, "Cortney OBrien", Julio Rosas, Matt Vespa
|
Americans have no shortage of reasons to resent the Internal Revenue Service . The agency is responsible for confiscating an annual percentage of each citizen 's earned wealth on behalf of the state ( and it 's never a bad time to reiterate this point about `` fair shares '' ) . It is now tasked with enforcing Obamacare 's hated individual mandate tax -- although with blanket exceptions like this , it 's unclear what there is to enforce at this stage . And it has been embroiled in a high-profile targeting scandal , in which agency higher-ups exploited their power to deliberately harass and abuse organizations opposed to the government 's ruling party . The scandal has flared up again in recent weeks , as the House of Representatives weighs contempt charges for Lois Lerner amid additional developments coming to light regarding the IRS ' internal culture , Lerner 's political biases , and possible collusion from the Justice Department and Congressional Democrats . Against that sordid backdrop , we have this :
The Internal Revenue Service has paid more than $ 2.8 million in bonuses to employees with recent disciplinary problems , including $ 1 million to workers who owed back taxes , a government investigator said Tuesday . More than 2,800 workers got bonuses despite facing a disciplinary action in the previous year , including 1,150 who owed back taxes , said a report by J. Russell George , the Treasury inspector general for tax administration . The bonuses were awarded from October 2010 through December 2012 . George 's report said the bonus program does n't violate federal regulations , but it 's inconsistent with the IRS mission to enforce tax laws .
So while the IRS was slow-rolling and auditing conservative groups , it was bestowing generous , taxpayer-funded bonuses upon employees who 'd been flagged for disciplinary issues , including more than 1,100 who owed back taxes . How many ordinary Americans have received any form of bonus during this `` recovery , '' which has been so tepid that Democrats are being urged not to mention it ? How many taxpayers would earn `` performance '' bonuses after getting into trouble at work , or openly violating core tenets of their company 's mission ? Perhaps most galling is the fact that these unwarranted bonuses do n't violate any federal regulations . An incredulous Mary Katharine Ham floats a modest proposal :
Surely in the untold reams of regulations , they could codify that they shouldn ’ t give piles of money to people charged with collecting your piles of money who then neglect to pay the proper piles of money to the organization for whom they ’ re charged with collecting piles of money ! Lord knows they can ’ t use common sense , so it must be a law . Pretty sure they could find my lawnmower gas tank in violation of some federal regulation if they tried , but this ? No prob , moving on .
Will this public embarrassment -- at a moment where the public is even more suspicious of the IRS than usual -- trigger some painfully obvious reforms within the agency ? Perhaps , but never underestimate the power of bureaucratic inertia to do the wrong thing .
|
Americans have no shortage of reasons to resent the Internal Revenue Service. The agency is responsible for confiscating an annual percentage of each citizen's earned wealth on behalf of the state (and it's never a bad time to reiterate this point about "fair shares"). It is now tasked with enforcing Obamacare's hated individual mandate tax -- although with blanket exceptions like this, it's unclear what there is to enforce at this stage. And it has been embroiled in a high-profile targeting scandal, in which agency higher-ups exploited their power to deliberately harass and abuse organizations opposed to the government's ruling party. The scandal has flared up again in recent weeks, as the House of Representatives weighs contempt charges for Lois Lerner amid additional developments coming to light regarding the IRS' internal culture, Lerner's political biases, and possible collusion from the Justice Department and Congressional Democrats. Against that sordid backdrop, we have this:
The Internal Revenue Service has paid more than $2.8 million in bonuses to employees with recent disciplinary problems, including $1 million to workers who owed back taxes, a government investigator said Tuesday. More than 2,800 workers got bonuses despite facing a disciplinary action in the previous year, including 1,150 who owed back taxes, said a report by J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration. The bonuses were awarded from October 2010 through December 2012. George's report said the bonus program doesn't violate federal regulations, but it's inconsistent with the IRS mission to enforce tax laws.
So while the IRS was slow-rolling and auditing conservative groups, it was bestowing generous, taxpayer-funded bonuses upon employees who'd been flagged for disciplinary issues, including more than 1,100 who owed back taxes. How many ordinary Americans have received any form of bonus during this "recovery," which has been so tepid that Democrats are being urged not to mention it? How many taxpayers would earn "performance" bonuses after getting into trouble at work, or openly violating core tenets of their company's mission? Perhaps most galling is the fact that these unwarranted bonuses don't violate any federal regulations. An incredulous Mary Katharine Ham floats a modest proposal:
Surely in the untold reams of regulations, they could codify that they shouldn’t give piles of money to people charged with collecting your piles of money who then neglect to pay the proper piles of money to the organization for whom they’re charged with collecting piles of money! Lord knows they can’t use common sense, so it must be a law. Pretty sure they could find my lawnmower gas tank in violation of some federal regulation if they tried, but this? No prob, moving on.
Will this public embarrassment -- at a moment where the public is even more suspicious of the IRS than usual -- trigger some painfully obvious reforms within the agency? Perhaps, but never underestimate the power of bureaucratic inertia to do the wrong thing.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
YHoBavj6KqKcE0OW
|
sexual_misconduct
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/27/pelosi-faces-backlash-for-questioning-conyers-accusers.html
|
Pelosi faces backlash for questioning Conyers accusers
|
2017-11-27
|
Brooke Singman
|
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi is facing a backlash for defending Rep. John Conyers and even questioning those accusing him of sexual harassment during a Sunday interview .
Pelosi , D-Calif. , touted Conyers , D-Mich. , on NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press ” as an American icon .
“ John Conyers is an icon in our country , ” she said . “ He has done a great deal to protect women . ”
She added : “ I believe he understands what ’ s at stake here . He will do the right thing . ”
Pelosi said Conyers , and the women accusing him , were entitled to “ due process , ” but also asked : “ I don ’ t know who they are—do you ? ”
Host Chuck Todd asked whether Pelosi believed the women alleging Conyers treated them inappropriately .
Pelosi ’ s interview drew harsh criticism on Twitter from those who accused her of playing party politics and focusing on “ power . ”
“ Pelosi is a survivor and knows she can ’ t lose support in black caucus so she is gentle w Conyers . It ’ s always about power , ” Chairman of the American Conservative Union Matt Schlapp tweeted Monday .
Political editor for TownHall.com and Fox News contributor Guy Benson pointed to Pelosi ’ s interview as an example of a “ double standard ” used by Democrats in regard to sexual harassment allegations . Benson cited Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore , who has been accused of pursuing teenage girls when he was in his 30s , and even sexual assault -- claims he denies .
“ I ’ m no Roy Moore defender , to put it mildly . But for those unable to comprehend why many conservative voters are willing to stand by him , look no further than Pelosi ’ s MTP performance today . Many GOP voters see Dems as ruthless defenders of power & are sick of double standards , ” Benson tweeted Sunday .
Despite Pelosi ’ s defense of Conyers ' record , she applauded the Democratic congressman 's decision later Sunday to step down from his leadership position on the House Judiciary Committee while the Ethics Committee reviews the harassment allegations against him .
“ Zero tolerance means consequences , ” Pelosi said in a statement Sunday , noting that she asked for an ethics investigation into Conyers and that he “ agreed to step aside ” as ranking member on the committee .
“ We are at a watershed moment on this issue , and no matter how great an individual ’ s legacy , it is not a license for harassment , ” Pelosi said . “ I commend the brave women coming forward . ”
Pelosi ’ s statement seemed to add more fuel to the Twitter fire , as pundits and journalists pointed out the difference in tone from her comments earlier that day .
The ethics committee announced last Tuesday that it began an investigation into Conyers , after receiving allegations of sexual harassment and age discrimination involving staff members and about the congressman using “ official resources for impermissible personal purposes . ”
The announcement followed a BuzzFeed News report last Monday that Conyers ’ office paid a woman more than $ 27,000 under a confidentiality agreement to settle a 2015 complaint that she was fired from Conyers ’ staff for rejecting his sexual advances .
Also last week , Melanie Sloan , a lawyer who worked with Conyers on the House Judiciary Committee , alleged that she was called into Conyers ’ office to discuss an issue and found him “ walking around in his underwear. ” It is unclear when the alleged incident occurred . She also claimed Conyers screamed at her , fired and re-hired her , and criticized her for not wearing stockings .
Conyers has continued to deny the allegations , but said he would fully cooperate in the probe .
|
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi is facing a backlash for defending Rep. John Conyers and even questioning those accusing him of sexual harassment during a Sunday interview.
Pelosi, D-Calif., touted Conyers, D-Mich., on NBC’s “Meet the Press” as an American icon.
“John Conyers is an icon in our country,” she said. “He has done a great deal to protect women.”
She added: “I believe he understands what’s at stake here. He will do the right thing.”
Pelosi said Conyers, and the women accusing him, were entitled to “due process,” but also asked: “I don’t know who they are—do you?”
Host Chuck Todd asked whether Pelosi believed the women alleging Conyers treated them inappropriately.
“That’s for the ethics committee to review,” she replied.
Pelosi’s interview drew harsh criticism on Twitter from those who accused her of playing party politics and focusing on “power.”
“Pelosi is a survivor and knows she can’t lose support in black caucus so she is gentle w Conyers. It’s always about power,” Chairman of the American Conservative Union Matt Schlapp tweeted Monday.
Political editor for TownHall.com and Fox News contributor Guy Benson pointed to Pelosi’s interview as an example of a “double standard” used by Democrats in regard to sexual harassment allegations. Benson cited Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, who has been accused of pursuing teenage girls when he was in his 30s, and even sexual assault -- claims he denies.
“I’m no Roy Moore defender, to put it mildly. But for those unable to comprehend why many conservative voters are willing to stand by him, look no further than Pelosi’s MTP performance today. Many GOP voters see Dems as ruthless defenders of power & are sick of double standards,” Benson tweeted Sunday.
Despite Pelosi’s defense of Conyers' record, she applauded the Democratic congressman's decision later Sunday to step down from his leadership position on the House Judiciary Committee while the Ethics Committee reviews the harassment allegations against him.
“Zero tolerance means consequences,” Pelosi said in a statement Sunday, noting that she asked for an ethics investigation into Conyers and that he “agreed to step aside” as ranking member on the committee.
“We are at a watershed moment on this issue, and no matter how great an individual’s legacy, it is not a license for harassment,” Pelosi said. “I commend the brave women coming forward.”
Pelosi’s statement seemed to add more fuel to the Twitter fire, as pundits and journalists pointed out the difference in tone from her comments earlier that day.
The 88-year-old Conyers is the longest-serving current House member.
The ethics committee announced last Tuesday that it began an investigation into Conyers, after receiving allegations of sexual harassment and age discrimination involving staff members and about the congressman using “official resources for impermissible personal purposes.”
The announcement followed a BuzzFeed News report last Monday that Conyers’ office paid a woman more than $27,000 under a confidentiality agreement to settle a 2015 complaint that she was fired from Conyers’ staff for rejecting his sexual advances.
Also last week, Melanie Sloan, a lawyer who worked with Conyers on the House Judiciary Committee, alleged that she was called into Conyers’ office to discuss an issue and found him “walking around in his underwear.” It is unclear when the alleged incident occurred. She also claimed Conyers screamed at her, fired and re-hired her, and criticized her for not wearing stockings.
Conyers has continued to deny the allegations, but said he would fully cooperate in the probe.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
7o2Y0dCAlA6ONzmb
|
white_house
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/18/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-donald-trump-antisemitism
|
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner face pressure to speak out on antisemitism
|
2017-08-18
|
David Smith
|
The Jewish couple have kept quiet since president ’ s defence of antisemitic protesters . Asks a rabbi : ‘ Who knows if this is what will set people over the edge ? ’
Ivanka Trump and her husband , Jared Kushner , are facing a potentially awkward reception from Washington ’ s Jewish community after Donald Trump ’ s astonishing defence of antisemitic protesters .
The US president ’ s daughter and son-in-law have been conspicuously silent since his reiterated claim on Tuesday that “ both sides ” were responsible for last Saturday ’ s violent clashes in Charlottesville , Virginia , that left one civil rights activist dead . White supremacists waved insignias from Nazi Germany , abused Kushner and yelled : “ Jews will not replace us . ”
Ivanka converted to Judaism – the rabbi who oversaw the process has condemned Trump ’ s “ moral equivalency and equivocation ” – ahead of her 2009 wedding to Jared . The couple are practising modern Orthodox Jews and have been able to separate expressions of their faith from their White House roles as advisers to the president . So far .
Trump tries to mend relationship with Jewish community after past slights Read more
“ That ’ s the question swirling around the Jewish community since 9 November , ” said Rabbi Shira Stutman of the Sixth & I Historic synagogue in Washington . “ It ’ s also the Jewish school they go to , it ’ s also the Jewish preschool they go to . The community has taken the tack of letting them be . Who knows if this is what will set people over the edge ? ”
It was time for Ivanka and Jared to take a stand , she added : “ The way they behave feels so against Jewish principles as I understand them . I cling to the hope that history will reveal that it was somehow necessary for them to be there , but it seems less and less likely . ”
Since moving from New York , Ivanka and Jared have attended the TheSHUL of the Nation ’ s Capital , a Chabad-Lubavitch synagogue near Dupont Circle . It has a reputation for bipartisanship and leaving politics at the door . Officials from the Barack Obama ’ s and Trump ’ s camps have attended and , on one occasion during the presidential transition , they did so at the same time .
Rabbi Levi Shemtov gave a speech before Ivanka and Jared first arrived , urging congregants to avoid political confrontations , and there have been no incidents . But on one occasion , a man excoriated Shemtov for allowing them in . Shemtov patiently explained to the man that he was the rabbi and this was a synagogue , a place where all are welcome to come and pray .
Ivanka and Jared are accompanied by the secret service who , according to a source who frequently attends the synagogue , work to maintain a discreet presence . The source described Jared as “ very humble , quiet , simple . Unless you knew who he was , you wouldn ’ t think he was anything special . ”
Shemtov himself declined to comment on Thursday . “ Once someone steps over the threshold of our synagogue , I ’ d prefer to respect their privacy , ” he said .
Arnold Resnicoff , a rabbi and military veteran due to give a prayer at the opening of the pro-forma session of the House of Representatives on Friday , said he thought confrontations at the TheSHUL of the Nation ’ s Capital were unlikely . “ The rabbi sees himself as reaching out to both sides of the aisle and goes out of his way to host events that bring Republicans and Democrats together , ” he said . “ I think they would respect Jared and Ivanka and not put the sins of the father on them . ”
Jewish members of the Trump administration have remained largely tight-lipped since the president claimed there were “ very fine people on both sides ” of Saturday ’ s mayhem . The national economic adviser Gary Cohn was described by several acquaintances as “ disgusted ” and “ deeply upset ” , the New York Times reported .
Ivanka tweeted on Sunday : “ There should be no place in society for racism , white supremacy and neo-nazis. ” But she has not given any indication of a crisis of conscience since her father ’ s scattergun press conference in the gilded lobby of Trump Tower on Tuesday .
Resnicoff does not believe that the couple should resign from the administration . “ I think Jared and Ivanka should be honest in terms of their thoughts about the rally , including the racism and antisemitism displayed by the marchers . I think they should be honest about their thoughts and positions in public if asked questions – but I would respect their right to withhold public comments about the president ’ s remarks , while being honest with him in private . ”
Some in the Jewish community express sympathy for Jared and Ivanka ’ s personal conflict . Rabbi David Shneyer , founder and director of the Am Kolel Sanctuary & Renewal Center in Beallsville , Maryland , said : “ I would hope they are having conversations with their father about the inappropriateness of his words and actions . My heart goes out to them because I feel they are caught in something that is pretty ugly .
“ I ’ d like to see every Republican take a stand and come out with a forceful statement . Anyone in the White House with moral integrity should take a stand . But it ’ s not realistic to expect her to walk away from her father . ”
Rabbi Arthur Green , rector of the Hebrew College Rabbinical School in Newton , Massachusetts , added : “ I feel terrible for them because they are in bed with that man . Gary Cohn and Steven Mnuchin [ the treasury secretary , who is Jewish ] should be challenged to leave . Jared and Ivanka obviously can ’ t . It ’ s family . There may be some value to them holding him down a bit . He is on the edge of being considered close to unhinged . ”
Green added that Ivanka and Jared had to examine the issue “ in their own conscience ” rather than in debates at their synagogue . He also noted that Ben Carson , an African American serving as secretary of housing and urban development , was also yet to speak out about the tragedy and its aftermath . “ Maybe he now should . ”
Trump ’ s defenders insist the president is no racist and point to the fact he has Jewish grandchildren . Michael Cohen , the president ’ s personal lawyer , who is Jewish , told reporters : “ I know President Trump and his heart . He is a good man and doesn ’ t have a racist bone in his body . All morning I am receiving horrific comments about being anti-black , racist , etc for supporting Trump . It ’ s just wrong ! ”
But Democrats demanded that the president ’ s daughter and son-in-law step up . Ron Klein , who is Jewish and a former congressman for Florida , said : “ The question is , where are Jared and Ivanka ? I don ’ t want to hear vacation in Vancouver . They ’ re part of his White House team , they ’ re Jewish , I presume they care about antisemitism , so why will they not come out to speak about their concerns ?
“ If the president does not retract his comments then they should resign and the same is true of other Jewish members of the administration . The president needs to get in line and act like presidents before him . ”
Ivanka and Jared are likely to come under pressure from the Jewish community in Washington , Klein added . “ Family loyalty is one thing , but it ’ s about our country . This is not just Democrats pushing on it , this is Jewish people of all stripes . The High Holidays this year are going to be a little tense there . ”
|
The Jewish couple have kept quiet since president’s defence of antisemitic protesters. Asks a rabbi: ‘Who knows if this is what will set people over the edge?’
Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, are facing a potentially awkward reception from Washington’s Jewish community after Donald Trump’s astonishing defence of antisemitic protesters.
The US president’s daughter and son-in-law have been conspicuously silent since his reiterated claim on Tuesday that “both sides” were responsible for last Saturday’s violent clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia, that left one civil rights activist dead. White supremacists waved insignias from Nazi Germany, abused Kushner and yelled: “Jews will not replace us.”
Ivanka converted to Judaism – the rabbi who oversaw the process has condemned Trump’s “moral equivalency and equivocation” – ahead of her 2009 wedding to Jared. The couple are practising modern Orthodox Jews and have been able to separate expressions of their faith from their White House roles as advisers to the president. So far.
Trump tries to mend relationship with Jewish community after past slights Read more
“That’s the question swirling around the Jewish community since 9 November,” said Rabbi Shira Stutman of the Sixth & I Historic synagogue in Washington. “It’s also the Jewish school they go to, it’s also the Jewish preschool they go to. The community has taken the tack of letting them be. Who knows if this is what will set people over the edge?”
It was time for Ivanka and Jared to take a stand, she added: “The way they behave feels so against Jewish principles as I understand them. I cling to the hope that history will reveal that it was somehow necessary for them to be there, but it seems less and less likely.”
Since moving from New York, Ivanka and Jared have attended the TheSHUL of the Nation’s Capital, a Chabad-Lubavitch synagogue near Dupont Circle. It has a reputation for bipartisanship and leaving politics at the door. Officials from the Barack Obama’s and Trump’s camps have attended and, on one occasion during the presidential transition, they did so at the same time.
Rabbi Levi Shemtov gave a speech before Ivanka and Jared first arrived, urging congregants to avoid political confrontations, and there have been no incidents. But on one occasion, a man excoriated Shemtov for allowing them in. Shemtov patiently explained to the man that he was the rabbi and this was a synagogue, a place where all are welcome to come and pray.
Ivanka and Jared are accompanied by the secret service who, according to a source who frequently attends the synagogue, work to maintain a discreet presence. The source described Jared as “very humble, quiet, simple. Unless you knew who he was, you wouldn’t think he was anything special.”
Shemtov himself declined to comment on Thursday. “Once someone steps over the threshold of our synagogue, I’d prefer to respect their privacy,” he said.
Arnold Resnicoff, a rabbi and military veteran due to give a prayer at the opening of the pro-forma session of the House of Representatives on Friday, said he thought confrontations at the TheSHUL of the Nation’s Capital were unlikely. “The rabbi sees himself as reaching out to both sides of the aisle and goes out of his way to host events that bring Republicans and Democrats together,” he said. “I think they would respect Jared and Ivanka and not put the sins of the father on them.”
Jewish members of the Trump administration have remained largely tight-lipped since the president claimed there were “very fine people on both sides” of Saturday’s mayhem. The national economic adviser Gary Cohn was described by several acquaintances as “disgusted” and “deeply upset”, the New York Times reported.
Ivanka tweeted on Sunday: “There should be no place in society for racism, white supremacy and neo-nazis.” But she has not given any indication of a crisis of conscience since her father’s scattergun press conference in the gilded lobby of Trump Tower on Tuesday.
Resnicoff does not believe that the couple should resign from the administration. “I think Jared and Ivanka should be honest in terms of their thoughts about the rally, including the racism and antisemitism displayed by the marchers. I think they should be honest about their thoughts and positions in public if asked questions – but I would respect their right to withhold public comments about the president’s remarks, while being honest with him in private.”
Some in the Jewish community express sympathy for Jared and Ivanka’s personal conflict. Rabbi David Shneyer, founder and director of the Am Kolel Sanctuary & Renewal Center in Beallsville, Maryland, said: “I would hope they are having conversations with their father about the inappropriateness of his words and actions. My heart goes out to them because I feel they are caught in something that is pretty ugly.
“I’d like to see every Republican take a stand and come out with a forceful statement. Anyone in the White House with moral integrity should take a stand. But it’s not realistic to expect her to walk away from her father.”
Rabbi Arthur Green, rector of the Hebrew College Rabbinical School in Newton, Massachusetts, added: “I feel terrible for them because they are in bed with that man. Gary Cohn and Steven Mnuchin [the treasury secretary, who is Jewish] should be challenged to leave. Jared and Ivanka obviously can’t. It’s family. There may be some value to them holding him down a bit. He is on the edge of being considered close to unhinged.”
Green added that Ivanka and Jared had to examine the issue “in their own conscience” rather than in debates at their synagogue. He also noted that Ben Carson, an African American serving as secretary of housing and urban development, was also yet to speak out about the tragedy and its aftermath. “Maybe he now should.”
Trump’s defenders insist the president is no racist and point to the fact he has Jewish grandchildren. Michael Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer, who is Jewish, told reporters: “I know President Trump and his heart. He is a good man and doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. All morning I am receiving horrific comments about being anti-black, racist, etc for supporting Trump. It’s just wrong!”
But Democrats demanded that the president’s daughter and son-in-law step up. Ron Klein, who is Jewish and a former congressman for Florida, said: “The question is, where are Jared and Ivanka? I don’t want to hear vacation in Vancouver. They’re part of his White House team, they’re Jewish, I presume they care about antisemitism, so why will they not come out to speak about their concerns?
“If the president does not retract his comments then they should resign and the same is true of other Jewish members of the administration. The president needs to get in line and act like presidents before him.”
Ivanka and Jared are likely to come under pressure from the Jewish community in Washington, Klein added. “Family loyalty is one thing, but it’s about our country. This is not just Democrats pushing on it, this is Jewish people of all stripes. The High Holidays this year are going to be a little tense there.”
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
iSEQ2dxhRTFRyvpe
|
immigration
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/15/democrats-shift-radically-on-illegal-immigration-a/
|
Democrats shift radically on illegal immigration as Republicans remain adamantly opposed
|
2015-09-15
|
Stephen Dinan
|
Democrats have become far more open to legalizing illegal immigrants over the last decade , while Republicans remain adamantly opposed , according to extensive new polling by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that helps explain the rise of businessman Donald Trump within the GOP presidential field and the dim hopes for getting anything done in Congress .
Little more than a decade ago , voters in both parties generally agreed that unchecked immigration was a significant threat to U.S. vital interests — with Democrats actually topping Republicans in that belief , 63 percent to 58 percent . Now , however , the parties diverge wildly , with 63 percent of Republicans saying immigration is a threat , while just 29 percent of Democrats rate it so .
Independents are spot in the middle , with 46 percent seeing immigration as a threat .
“ Today , the partisan gaps between Republicans and Democrats on illegal immigration are at record levels , ” the Chicago Council said . “ Two-thirds of Republicans , but only one-third of Democrats , say that controlling and reducing illegal immigration is a very important goal of U.S. foreign policy . ”
Overall , Democrats share many of the same foreign policy goals as voters who identify with the GOP or who state they are independent , the Chicago Council found , ranging from the threat from radical Islam to the spread of nuclear weapons .
But the two parties split radically on immigration and global warming , where Democrats are far more likely to say the U.S. must change , even if it means major costs to the government and economy : 56 percent of Democrats said climate change is serious and big steps are needed , while just 12 percent of Republicans agreed .
Indeed , Democrats place climate change as a top-five threat to the U.S. , while Republicans ranked it dead last out of 20 possible threats , according to the poll , which surveyed 2,034 adults between May 28 and June 17 .
The changing attitudes on immigration trace back to the beginning of President George W. Bush ’ s tenure in office .
Under President Clinton , a Democrat who oversaw the stiffest immigration policies in modern politics , the parties generally agreed that mass immigration was a threat to U.S. interests — and Democrats were even slightly more staunch in that view , at 58 percent to 56 percent for the GOP . But those attitudes changed , ironically , under Mr. Bush , who pushed for more leniency for illegal immigrants .
Democrats appeared to side with Mr. Bush , while his own GOP loyalists split from him . The divide has only deepened under President Obama , who has used the issue as a political wedge , urging Hispanic voters to punish Republicans for not embracing legalization .
But that ’ s an unpopular opinion within Republican circles , where 45 percent said illegal immigrants should be forced to leave the country , and another 16 percent said they can stay but should never be allowed to apply for citizenship . By contrast , the vast majority of Democrats say they should be allowed to stay and become citizens , either immediately or after they pay a penalty and “ wait a few years . ”
Democratic candidates are competing to be the most generous toward illegal immigrants , with several of them vowing to go beyond Mr. Obama ’ s executive actions and grant a deportation amnesty to even more than the 5 million this current White House has tried to include in its policies .
Republican candidates , meanwhile , are sparring over whether illegal immigrants should be granted any legal status at all , even if it does fall short of a special new pathway to citizenship .
America ’ s Voice , a leading pro-immigrant advocacy group , said the Republican candidates ’ rhetoric , and particularly that of Mr. Trump , is leading to a poisonous atmosphere for immigrants .
“ While none of the other contenders on the debate stage have fully embraced Trump ’ s nativist mass-expulsion platform , Republican candidate after Republican candidate is nonetheless lurching to the right on immigration , and embracing patently ridiculous and offensive immigration policies , ” the group said in a memo ahead of Wednesday ’ s GOP presidential debate .
The advocacy group warned that if the GOP doesn ’ t change its stances or tone on the issue , it will see a political backlash from Hispanic and Asian voters .
An MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist poll released earlier this week found that black voters also fully embrace the cause of illegal immigrants .
On question after question , black voters were as likely , or sometimes even more likely , than Hispanic voters to back lenient policies .
For example , only 23 percent of black voters wanted to see illegal immigrants deported to remove the need for sanctuary cities , which is even smaller than the 27 percent of Hispanics who supported deportation . And 65 percent of black voters found the term “ anchor baby ” to be an offensive way to describe a child born to an illegal immigrant mother — while just 56 percent of Hispanics found it offensive .
As with the Chicago Council poll , the MSNBC survey found a deep party divide on those questions too .
The split contrasts with most other areas of policy . Despite intense differences between Republicans and Democrats over the Iran nuclear deal and Mr. Obama ’ s handling of world hot spots , voters in both parties generally favor an active U.S. role in world affairs , the Chicago Council survey found .
Sixty-nine percent of the GOP and 67 percent of Democrats backed a strong American role . Independents are slight outliers , with just 57 percent of them favoring an active role .
Republicans are more likely to perceive Islamic fundamentalism as a critical threat , but the GOP , Democrats and independents all said the threat rose over the last year .
|
Democrats have become far more open to legalizing illegal immigrants over the last decade, while Republicans remain adamantly opposed, according to extensive new polling by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that helps explain the rise of businessman Donald Trump within the GOP presidential field and the dim hopes for getting anything done in Congress.
Little more than a decade ago, voters in both parties generally agreed that unchecked immigration was a significant threat to U.S. vital interests — with Democrats actually topping Republicans in that belief, 63 percent to 58 percent. Now, however, the parties diverge wildly, with 63 percent of Republicans saying immigration is a threat, while just 29 percent of Democrats rate it so.
Independents are spot in the middle, with 46 percent seeing immigration as a threat.
“Today, the partisan gaps between Republicans and Democrats on illegal immigration are at record levels,” the Chicago Council said. “Two-thirds of Republicans, but only one-third of Democrats, say that controlling and reducing illegal immigration is a very important goal of U.S. foreign policy.”
Overall, Democrats share many of the same foreign policy goals as voters who identify with the GOP or who state they are independent, the Chicago Council found, ranging from the threat from radical Islam to the spread of nuclear weapons.
But the two parties split radically on immigration and global warming, where Democrats are far more likely to say the U.S. must change, even if it means major costs to the government and economy: 56 percent of Democrats said climate change is serious and big steps are needed, while just 12 percent of Republicans agreed.
Indeed, Democrats place climate change as a top-five threat to the U.S., while Republicans ranked it dead last out of 20 possible threats, according to the poll, which surveyed 2,034 adults between May 28 and June 17.
The changing attitudes on immigration trace back to the beginning of President George W. Bush’s tenure in office.
Under President Clinton, a Democrat who oversaw the stiffest immigration policies in modern politics, the parties generally agreed that mass immigration was a threat to U.S. interests — and Democrats were even slightly more staunch in that view, at 58 percent to 56 percent for the GOP. But those attitudes changed, ironically, under Mr. Bush, who pushed for more leniency for illegal immigrants.
Democrats appeared to side with Mr. Bush, while his own GOP loyalists split from him. The divide has only deepened under President Obama, who has used the issue as a political wedge, urging Hispanic voters to punish Republicans for not embracing legalization.
But that’s an unpopular opinion within Republican circles, where 45 percent said illegal immigrants should be forced to leave the country, and another 16 percent said they can stay but should never be allowed to apply for citizenship. By contrast, the vast majority of Democrats say they should be allowed to stay and become citizens, either immediately or after they pay a penalty and “wait a few years.”
The presidential candidates mirror that divide.
Democratic candidates are competing to be the most generous toward illegal immigrants, with several of them vowing to go beyond Mr. Obama’s executive actions and grant a deportation amnesty to even more than the 5 million this current White House has tried to include in its policies.
Republican candidates, meanwhile, are sparring over whether illegal immigrants should be granted any legal status at all, even if it does fall short of a special new pathway to citizenship.
America’s Voice, a leading pro-immigrant advocacy group, said the Republican candidates’ rhetoric, and particularly that of Mr. Trump, is leading to a poisonous atmosphere for immigrants.
“While none of the other contenders on the debate stage have fully embraced Trump’s nativist mass-expulsion platform, Republican candidate after Republican candidate is nonetheless lurching to the right on immigration, and embracing patently ridiculous and offensive immigration policies,” the group said in a memo ahead of Wednesday’s GOP presidential debate.
The advocacy group warned that if the GOP doesn’t change its stances or tone on the issue, it will see a political backlash from Hispanic and Asian voters.
An MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist poll released earlier this week found that black voters also fully embrace the cause of illegal immigrants.
On question after question, black voters were as likely, or sometimes even more likely, than Hispanic voters to back lenient policies.
For example, only 23 percent of black voters wanted to see illegal immigrants deported to remove the need for sanctuary cities, which is even smaller than the 27 percent of Hispanics who supported deportation. And 65 percent of black voters found the term “anchor baby” to be an offensive way to describe a child born to an illegal immigrant mother — while just 56 percent of Hispanics found it offensive.
As with the Chicago Council poll, the MSNBC survey found a deep party divide on those questions too.
The split contrasts with most other areas of policy. Despite intense differences between Republicans and Democrats over the Iran nuclear deal and Mr. Obama’s handling of world hot spots, voters in both parties generally favor an active U.S. role in world affairs, the Chicago Council survey found.
Sixty-nine percent of the GOP and 67 percent of Democrats backed a strong American role. Independents are slight outliers, with just 57 percent of them favoring an active role.
Republicans are more likely to perceive Islamic fundamentalism as a critical threat, but the GOP, Democrats and independents all said the threat rose over the last year.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
7pfaWSl0mnSorEOQ
|
civil_rights
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/09/28/495488716/bias-isnt-just-a-police-problem-its-a-preschool-problem
|
Bias Isn't Just A Police Problem, It's A Preschool Problem Listen· 4:33
|
2016-09-28
|
Cory Turner
|
Bias Is n't Just A Police Problem , It 's A Preschool Problem
Late one night , a man searches for something in a parking lot . On his hands and knees , he crawls around a bright circle of light created by a streetlamp overhead .
`` Oh , no . I dropped them way over there , '' he says , gesturing vaguely to some faraway spot on the other side of the lot .
New research from the Yale Child Study Center suggests that many preschool teachers look for disruptive behavior in much the same way : in just one place , waiting for it to appear .
The problem with this strategy ( besides it being inefficient ) , is that , because of implicit bias , teachers are spending too much time watching black boys and expecting the worst .
Lead researcher Walter Gilliam knew that to get an accurate measure of implicit bias among preschool teachers , he could n't be fully transparent with his subjects about what , exactly , he was trying to study .
Implicit biases are just that — subtle , often subconscious stereotypes that guide our expectations and interactions with people .
`` We all have them , '' Gilliam says . `` Implicit biases are a natural process by which we take information , and we judge people on the basis of generalizations regarding that information . We all do it . ''
Even the most well-meaning teacher can harbor deep-seated biases , whether she knows it or not . So Gilliam and his team devised a remarkable — and remarkably deceptive — experiment .
At a big , annual conference for pre-K teachers , Gilliam and his team recruited 135 educators to watch a few short videos . Here 's what they told them :
We are interested in learning about how teachers detect challenging
behavior in the classroom . Sometimes this involves seeing behavior before it becomes problematic . The video segments you are about to view are of preschoolers engaging in various activities . Some clips may or may not contain challenging behaviors . Your job is to press the enter key on the external keypad every time you see a behavior that could become a potential challenge .
Each video included four children : a black boy and girl and a white boy and girl .
While the teachers watched , eye-scan technology measured the trajectory of their gaze . Gilliam wanted to know : When teachers expected bad behavior , who did they watch ?
`` What we found was exactly what we expected based on the rates at which children are expelled from preschool programs , '' Gilliam says . `` Teachers looked more at the black children than the white children , and they looked specifically more at the African-American boy . ''
Indeed , according to recent data from the U.S. Department of Education , black children are 3.6 times more likely to be suspended from preschool than white children . Put another way , black children account for roughly 19 percent of all preschoolers , but nearly half of preschoolers who get suspended .
One reason that number is so high , Gilliam suggests , is that teachers spend more time focused on their black students , expecting bad behavior . `` If you look for something in one place , that 's the only place you can typically find it . ''
The Yale team also asked subjects to identify the child they felt required the most attention . Forty-two percent identified the black boy , 34 percent identified the white boy , while 13 percent and 10 percent identified the white and black girls respectively .
The Yale study had two parts . And , as compelling as the eye-scan results were , Gilliam 's most surprising takeaway came later .
He gave teachers a one-paragraph vignette to read , describing a child disrupting a class ; there 's hitting , scratching , even toy-throwing . The child in the vignette was randomly assigned what researchers considered a stereotypical name ( DeShawn , Latoya , Jake , Emily ) , and subjects were asked to rate the severity of the behavior on a scale of one to five .
White teachers consistently held black students to a lower standard , rating their behavior as less severe than the same behavior of white students .
Gilliam says this tracks with previous research around how people may shift standards and expectations of others based on stereotypes and implicit bias . In other words , if white teachers believe that black boys are more likely to behave badly , they may be less surprised by that behavior and rate it less severely .
Black teachers , on the other hand , did the opposite , holding black students to a higher standard and rating their behavior as consistently more severe than that of white students .
Here 's another key finding : Some teachers were also given information about the disruptive child 's home life , to see if it made them more empathetic :
[ CHILD ] lives with his/her mother , his/her 8- and 6-year-old sisters ,
and his/her 10-month-old baby brother . His/her home life is turbulent , between having a father who has never been a constant figure in his/her life , and a mother who struggles with depression but does n't have the resources available to seek help . During the rare times when his/her parents are together , loud and sometimes violent disputes occur between them . In order to make ends meet , [ CHILD 's ] mother has taken on three different jobs , and is in a constant state of exhaustion . [ CHILD ] and his/her siblings are left in the care of available relatives and neighbors while their mother is at work .
Teachers who received this background did react more empathetically , lowering their rating of a behavior 's severity — but only if the teacher and student were of the same race .
As for white teachers rating black students or black teachers rating white students ?
`` If the race of the teacher and the child were different and [ the teacher ] received this background information , severity rates skyrocketed , '' Gilliam says . `` And the teachers ended up feeling that the behavioral problems were hopeless and that very little could be done to actually improve the situation . ''
This result is consistent with previous research on empathy , Gilliam says . `` When people feel some kind of shared connection to folks , when they hear more about their misfortunes , they feel more empathic to them . But if they feel that they are different from each other ... it may actually cause them to perceive that person in a more negative light . ''
It 's impossible to separate these findings from today 's broader , cultural context — of disproportionately high suspension rates for black boys and young men throughout the school years , of America 's school-to-prison pipeline , and , most immediately , of the drumbeat of stories about black men being killed by police .
If implicit bias can play a role on our preschool reading rugs and in our classrooms ' cozy corners , it no doubt haunts every corner of our society .
Biases are natural , as Gilliam says , but they must also be reckoned with .
The good news , if there is such a thing from work such as this , is that Gilliam and his team were ethically obligated to follow up with every one of the 135 teachers who participated in the study , to come clean about the deception .
Gilliam even gave them an out , letting them withdraw their data — for many of them , the lasting proof of their bias .
|
Bias Isn't Just A Police Problem, It's A Preschool Problem
Enlarge this image toggle caption LA Johnson/NPR LA Johnson/NPR
First, a story:
Late one night, a man searches for something in a parking lot. On his hands and knees, he crawls around a bright circle of light created by a streetlamp overhead.
A woman passes, stops, takes in the scene.
"What are you looking for? Can I help?"
"My car keys. Any chance you've seen them?"
"You dropped them right around here?"
"Oh, no. I dropped them way over there," he says, gesturing vaguely to some faraway spot on the other side of the lot.
"Then why are you looking here?"
The man pauses to consider the question.
"Because this is where the light is."
New research from the Yale Child Study Center suggests that many preschool teachers look for disruptive behavior in much the same way: in just one place, waiting for it to appear.
The problem with this strategy (besides it being inefficient), is that, because of implicit bias, teachers are spending too much time watching black boys and expecting the worst.
The study
Lead researcher Walter Gilliam knew that to get an accurate measure of implicit bias among preschool teachers, he couldn't be fully transparent with his subjects about what, exactly, he was trying to study.
Implicit biases are just that — subtle, often subconscious stereotypes that guide our expectations and interactions with people.
"We all have them," Gilliam says. "Implicit biases are a natural process by which we take information, and we judge people on the basis of generalizations regarding that information. We all do it."
Even the most well-meaning teacher can harbor deep-seated biases, whether she knows it or not. So Gilliam and his team devised a remarkable — and remarkably deceptive — experiment.
At a big, annual conference for pre-K teachers, Gilliam and his team recruited 135 educators to watch a few short videos. Here's what they told them:
We are interested in learning about how teachers detect challenging
behavior in the classroom. Sometimes this involves seeing behavior before it becomes problematic. The video segments you are about to view are of preschoolers engaging in various activities. Some clips may or may not contain challenging behaviors. Your job is to press the enter key on the external keypad every time you see a behavior that could become a potential challenge.
Each video included four children: a black boy and girl and a white boy and girl.
Here's the deception: There was no challenging behavior.
While the teachers watched, eye-scan technology measured the trajectory of their gaze. Gilliam wanted to know: When teachers expected bad behavior, who did they watch?
"What we found was exactly what we expected based on the rates at which children are expelled from preschool programs," Gilliam says. "Teachers looked more at the black children than the white children, and they looked specifically more at the African-American boy."
Indeed, according to recent data from the U.S. Department of Education, black children are 3.6 times more likely to be suspended from preschool than white children. Put another way, black children account for roughly 19 percent of all preschoolers, but nearly half of preschoolers who get suspended.
One reason that number is so high, Gilliam suggests, is that teachers spend more time focused on their black students, expecting bad behavior. "If you look for something in one place, that's the only place you can typically find it."
The Yale team also asked subjects to identify the child they felt required the most attention. Forty-two percent identified the black boy, 34 percent identified the white boy, while 13 percent and 10 percent identified the white and black girls respectively.
The vignette
The Yale study had two parts. And, as compelling as the eye-scan results were, Gilliam's most surprising takeaway came later.
He gave teachers a one-paragraph vignette to read, describing a child disrupting a class; there's hitting, scratching, even toy-throwing. The child in the vignette was randomly assigned what researchers considered a stereotypical name (DeShawn, Latoya, Jake, Emily), and subjects were asked to rate the severity of the behavior on a scale of one to five.
White teachers consistently held black students to a lower standard, rating their behavior as less severe than the same behavior of white students.
Gilliam says this tracks with previous research around how people may shift standards and expectations of others based on stereotypes and implicit bias. In other words, if white teachers believe that black boys are more likely to behave badly, they may be less surprised by that behavior and rate it less severely.
Black teachers, on the other hand, did the opposite, holding black students to a higher standard and rating their behavior as consistently more severe than that of white students.
Here's another key finding: Some teachers were also given information about the disruptive child's home life, to see if it made them more empathetic:
[CHILD] lives with his/her mother, his/her 8- and 6-year-old sisters,
and his/her 10-month-old baby brother. His/her home life is turbulent, between having a father who has never been a constant figure in his/her life, and a mother who struggles with depression but doesn't have the resources available to seek help. During the rare times when his/her parents are together, loud and sometimes violent disputes occur between them. In order to make ends meet, [CHILD's] mother has taken on three different jobs, and is in a constant state of exhaustion. [CHILD] and his/her siblings are left in the care of available relatives and neighbors while their mother is at work.
Guess what happened.
Teachers who received this background did react more empathetically, lowering their rating of a behavior's severity — but only if the teacher and student were of the same race.
As for white teachers rating black students or black teachers rating white students?
"If the race of the teacher and the child were different and [the teacher] received this background information, severity rates skyrocketed," Gilliam says. "And the teachers ended up feeling that the behavioral problems were hopeless and that very little could be done to actually improve the situation."
This result is consistent with previous research on empathy, Gilliam says. "When people feel some kind of shared connection to folks, when they hear more about their misfortunes, they feel more empathic to them. But if they feel that they are different from each other ... it may actually cause them to perceive that person in a more negative light."
It's impossible to separate these findings from today's broader, cultural context — of disproportionately high suspension rates for black boys and young men throughout the school years, of America's school-to-prison pipeline, and, most immediately, of the drumbeat of stories about black men being killed by police.
If implicit bias can play a role on our preschool reading rugs and in our classrooms' cozy corners, it no doubt haunts every corner of our society.
Biases are natural, as Gilliam says, but they must also be reckoned with.
The good news, if there is such a thing from work such as this, is that Gilliam and his team were ethically obligated to follow up with every one of the 135 teachers who participated in the study, to come clean about the deception.
Gilliam even gave them an out, letting them withdraw their data — for many of them, the lasting proof of their bias.
Only one did.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
rkbWOWDOFbgKM7pr
|
elections
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/12/161032255/obamas-post-charlotte-bounce-may-owe-more-to-tv-ads-than-convention
|
Obama's Post-Charlotte Bounce May Owe More To TV Ads Than Convention
|
2012-09-12
|
Peter Over
|
Obama 's Post-Charlotte Bounce May Owe More To TV Ads Than Convention
It 's become conventional wisdom that President Obama 's new lead in the polls is a bounce , coming out of the Democratic convention in Charlotte , N.C .
But an analysis from the Wesleyan Media Project suggests that the bounce might be due to TV ads as much as grand speeches . The Obama campaign and its allies laid out $ 21.1 million for TV during the two weeks of the party conventions . Over that same stretch , Republican Mitt Romney and his backers spent significantly less , $ 12.9 million .
With that cash advantage , the Obama campaign bought a better-than 2-to-1 advantage in the number of ads airing in battleground states .
The media project — a joint effort by political scientists at Wesleyan College in Connecticut , Bowdoin College in Maine and the University of Washington — bases its estimates on data from Kantar Media/CMAG , which tracks TV ads . The estimates cover broadcast television and national cable .
`` We would n't want to suggest that the convention , and the national media attention and coverage , may not have been influential , '' Wesleyan political scientist Erika Franklin Fowler , a co-director of the project , tells NPR . But she adds : `` If you have such an advantage on the airwaves , that is also likely to have an effect . ''
She says President Obama appeared to use TV to counter attacks from the Republican convention and then held that advantage during the Democratic convention .
The project tallies 40,974 ads on behalf of Obama versus 17,779 for Romney . Of the ads for Obama , 91 percent came from the Obama campaign itself — a sign of fundraising strength by the campaign committee and the Democratic National Committee , but also a measure of how badly the Democratic outside groups have fared with big donors .
On the GOP side , the spending was lopsided the other way , with 72 percent of the ads coming from three outside groups that take unregulated contributions : the pro-Romney superPAC Restore Our Future ; another pro-GOP superPAC , American Crossroads ; and the social welfare organization Americans For Prosperity , backed by the billionaire industrialists David and Charles Koch . The superPACs disclose their donors . Americans For Prosperity is allowed by law to keep its donors secret .
Another powerful social welfare organization was missing from the presidential race these past two weeks . Crossroads GPS , the heavily funded partner of American Crossroads , under the guidance of strategist Karl Rove , shifted its attention to Senate races . Earlier this summer , it had been the biggest spender on Romney 's behalf .
Maybe none of this is news to voters in the Las Vegas , Cleveland and Denver markets . They 're the top three targets for both campaigns . The Wesleyan project says that since April , viewers in Las Vegas have been hit with more than 30,000 presidential campaign ads . And those ads are mostly negative .
`` We all expected that , '' says Fowler . But compared with 2008 , she says , the Obama team is almost twice as likely to use pure attack ads . And 70 percent of the pro-Romney ads are purely negative , up from 40 percent for John McCain , the 2008 Republican nominee .
The Wesleyan project also took the measure of Senate campaigns . The volume leader is Montana , where Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg is trying to unseat first-term Democrat Jon Tester . Data show that Montanans have been exposed to nearly 45,000 Senate campaign ads since June 1 .
|
Obama's Post-Charlotte Bounce May Owe More To TV Ads Than Convention
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alex Wong/Getty Images Alex Wong/Getty Images
It's become conventional wisdom that President Obama's new lead in the polls is a bounce, coming out of the Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C.
But an analysis from the Wesleyan Media Project suggests that the bounce might be due to TV ads as much as grand speeches. The Obama campaign and its allies laid out $21.1 million for TV during the two weeks of the party conventions. Over that same stretch, Republican Mitt Romney and his backers spent significantly less, $12.9 million.
With that cash advantage, the Obama campaign bought a better-than 2-to-1 advantage in the number of ads airing in battleground states.
The media project — a joint effort by political scientists at Wesleyan College in Connecticut, Bowdoin College in Maine and the University of Washington — bases its estimates on data from Kantar Media/CMAG, which tracks TV ads. The estimates cover broadcast television and national cable.
"We wouldn't want to suggest that the convention, and the national media attention and coverage, may not have been influential," Wesleyan political scientist Erika Franklin Fowler, a co-director of the project, tells NPR. But she adds: "If you have such an advantage on the airwaves, that is also likely to have an effect."
She says President Obama appeared to use TV to counter attacks from the Republican convention and then held that advantage during the Democratic convention.
The project tallies 40,974 ads on behalf of Obama versus 17,779 for Romney. Of the ads for Obama, 91 percent came from the Obama campaign itself — a sign of fundraising strength by the campaign committee and the Democratic National Committee, but also a measure of how badly the Democratic outside groups have fared with big donors.
On the GOP side, the spending was lopsided the other way, with 72 percent of the ads coming from three outside groups that take unregulated contributions: the pro-Romney superPAC Restore Our Future; another pro-GOP superPAC, American Crossroads; and the social welfare organization Americans For Prosperity, backed by the billionaire industrialists David and Charles Koch. The superPACs disclose their donors. Americans For Prosperity is allowed by law to keep its donors secret.
Another powerful social welfare organization was missing from the presidential race these past two weeks. Crossroads GPS, the heavily funded partner of American Crossroads, under the guidance of strategist Karl Rove, shifted its attention to Senate races. Earlier this summer, it had been the biggest spender on Romney's behalf.
Maybe none of this is news to voters in the Las Vegas, Cleveland and Denver markets. They're the top three targets for both campaigns. The Wesleyan project says that since April, viewers in Las Vegas have been hit with more than 30,000 presidential campaign ads. And those ads are mostly negative.
"We all expected that," says Fowler. But compared with 2008, she says, the Obama team is almost twice as likely to use pure attack ads. And 70 percent of the pro-Romney ads are purely negative, up from 40 percent for John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee.
The Wesleyan project also took the measure of Senate campaigns. The volume leader is Montana, where Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg is trying to unseat first-term Democrat Jon Tester. Data show that Montanans have been exposed to nearly 45,000 Senate campaign ads since June 1.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
o3c6bBDdflVzVEdc
|
treasury
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/lois-lerner-retires-irs-97217.html?hp=l1
|
Lois Lerner retires from IRS
|
2013-09-23
|
Lauren French
|
Lerner retired from the agency effective Monday . Lerner still Hill 's favorite piñata
Lois Lerner is the political piñata that Congress still loves to whack months after she awkwardly acknowledged that the IRS wrongly scrutinized conservative groups for years .
Her sudden retirement on Monday after 12 years at the agency won ’ t change that .
She ’ s still a central figure in three congressional investigations into the political targeting scandal that embroiled the IRS — and the Obama administration — in May . House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa ( R-Calif. ) has an outstanding subpoena to compel her testimony before his panel .
And as a 30-year veteran of the civil service , Lerner is still eligible for a pension — something that is sure to further anger critics in Congress .
“ Her departure does not answer these questions or diminish the committee ’ s interest in hearing her testimony , ” Issa said in a statement .
Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch , the top Republican on the Finance Committee , said Lerner ’ s retirement “ does not mean the investigation is over . ”
“ Far from it , ” he said . “ In fact , there are many serious unanswered questions that must be addressed so we can get to the truth . ”
Even Democrats who have slammed the GOP for politicizing congressional probes into the IRS didn ’ t pull their punches .
“ Lois Lerner is being held responsible for her gross mismanagement of the IRS tax-exempt division , which led to improper handling of applications for tax-exempt status , whether conservative [ or ] progressive , ” said Michigan Rep. Sander Levin , the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee .
A Democratic congressional aide said the IRS was moving toward terminating Lerner after completing an investigation into her role in the targeting controversy .
The IRS found that Lerner , who led the agency ’ s unit that reviewed requests for tax exemptions , mismanaged her department and was “ neglectful of duty ” but found no evidence of political bias , the aide said .
William Taylor , Lerner ’ s attorney , did not immediately return a request for comment .
Lerner sparked the IRS scandal in May when she told an American Bar Association conference that the agency wrongly targeted tea party groups applying for a tax exemption . The admission threw the White House into crisis mode , forcing Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to ask then-IRS chief Steven Miller to step down .
President Barack Obama later replaced Miller with Daniel Werfel , a former Office of Management and Budget official .
Lerner was placed on administrative leave later in May after an explosive appearance before the House Oversight Committee in which she boldly declared her innocence before invoking her Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination and refused to answer questions from lawmakers .
“ I have not done anything wrong , ” she said at the May 22 hearing . “ I have not broken any laws . I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations , and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee . ”
Issa and committee Republicans disagreed . They later voted to recall Lerner and said she waived her Fifth Amendment rights by declaring her innocence without allowing lawmakers to question her . Issa hasn ’ t indicated when he plans to call Lerner back to Capitol Hill .
Taylor , Lerner ’ s attorney , has told ███ that his client is interested in immunity in exchange for testifying before Issa ’ s panel again .
Lerner quickly became the public face of the IRS scandal . She initially blamed mid-level IRS employees in Cincinnati for the targeting but congressional investigators have rejected that explanation . Emails and documents released by the House Oversight Committee show that Lerner and other senior IRS leaders in Washington knew of the targeting early on .
Democrats and Republicans joined together to call for Lerner ’ s ouster in the early days of May , saying she misled them about the scope of the targeting and the extent to which IRS ’ s top brass knew the details .
More recently , congressional Republicans have labored to keep public pressure on the agency by releasing emails and documents from Lerner and other key IRS officials .
Lerner ’ s private and public emails discussing the IRS from her tenure are still fair game for congressional investigators and she can still be asked to testify before interested committees .
The IRS said in a statement on Monday that it has taken “ decisive actions to correct failures in exempt organizations management . ”
“ As Werfel has made clear , the behavior cited in the May [ inspector general ’ s ] report was the result of mismanagement and poor judgment , ” the statement said . “ The IRS is making important progress on fixing the underlying management and organizational deficiencies in the [ exempt organizations ] area identified by [ the inspector general ] . Our goal is to restore the public ’ s faith and trust in the tax system . ”
|
Lerner retired from the agency effective Monday. Lerner still Hill's favorite piñata
Lois Lerner is the political piñata that Congress still loves to whack months after she awkwardly acknowledged that the IRS wrongly scrutinized conservative groups for years.
Her sudden retirement on Monday after 12 years at the agency won’t change that.
Story Continued Below
She’s still a central figure in three congressional investigations into the political targeting scandal that embroiled the IRS — and the Obama administration — in May. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has an outstanding subpoena to compel her testimony before his panel.
And as a 30-year veteran of the civil service, Lerner is still eligible for a pension — something that is sure to further anger critics in Congress.
( WATCH: Lois Lerner pleads the fifth)
“Her departure does not answer these questions or diminish the committee’s interest in hearing her testimony,” Issa said in a statement.
Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said Lerner’s retirement “does not mean the investigation is over.”
“Far from it,” he said. “In fact, there are many serious unanswered questions that must be addressed so we can get to the truth.”
Even Democrats who have slammed the GOP for politicizing congressional probes into the IRS didn’t pull their punches.
( PHOTOS: 8 key players in IRS scandal story)
“Lois Lerner is being held responsible for her gross mismanagement of the IRS tax-exempt division, which led to improper handling of applications for tax-exempt status, whether conservative [or] progressive,” said Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
A Democratic congressional aide said the IRS was moving toward terminating Lerner after completing an investigation into her role in the targeting controversy.
The IRS found that Lerner, who led the agency’s unit that reviewed requests for tax exemptions, mismanaged her department and was “neglectful of duty” but found no evidence of political bias, the aide said.
William Taylor, Lerner’s attorney, did not immediately return a request for comment.
( PHOTOS: IRS hearing on Capitol Hill)
Lerner sparked the IRS scandal in May when she told an American Bar Association conference that the agency wrongly targeted tea party groups applying for a tax exemption. The admission threw the White House into crisis mode, forcing Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to ask then-IRS chief Steven Miller to step down.
President Barack Obama later replaced Miller with Daniel Werfel, a former Office of Management and Budget official.
Lerner was placed on administrative leave later in May after an explosive appearance before the House Oversight Committee in which she boldly declared her innocence before invoking her Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination and refused to answer questions from lawmakers.
“I have not done anything wrong,” she said at the May 22 hearing. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.”
( PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)
Issa and committee Republicans disagreed. They later voted to recall Lerner and said she waived her Fifth Amendment rights by declaring her innocence without allowing lawmakers to question her. Issa hasn’t indicated when he plans to call Lerner back to Capitol Hill.
Taylor, Lerner’s attorney, has told POLITICO that his client is interested in immunity in exchange for testifying before Issa’s panel again.
Lerner quickly became the public face of the IRS scandal. She initially blamed mid-level IRS employees in Cincinnati for the targeting but congressional investigators have rejected that explanation. Emails and documents released by the House Oversight Committee show that Lerner and other senior IRS leaders in Washington knew of the targeting early on.
Democrats and Republicans joined together to call for Lerner’s ouster in the early days of May, saying she misled them about the scope of the targeting and the extent to which IRS’s top brass knew the details.
More recently, congressional Republicans have labored to keep public pressure on the agency by releasing emails and documents from Lerner and other key IRS officials.
Lerner’s private and public emails discussing the IRS from her tenure are still fair game for congressional investigators and she can still be asked to testify before interested committees.
The IRS said in a statement on Monday that it has taken “decisive actions to correct failures in exempt organizations management.”
“As Werfel has made clear, the behavior cited in the May [inspector general’s] report was the result of mismanagement and poor judgment,” the statement said. “The IRS is making important progress on fixing the underlying management and organizational deficiencies in the [exempt organizations] area identified by [the inspector general]. Our goal is to restore the public’s faith and trust in the tax system.”
Follow @politico
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
6cW7YODGLTwTA65w
|
white_house
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-sequester-looming-idea/2013/02/18/id/490832
|
Obama Ends Golf Trip Just 10 Days Before His Sequester Slashes Military
|
2013-02-18
|
Sandy Fitzgerald
|
President Barack Obama returned to Washington on Monday after a three-day Florida golfing trip with time running out to find ways to avoid his own brainchild plan of $ 1 trillion in across-the-board cuts.The looming sequester , which Obama thought up , despite him now labeling it a `` really bad idea '' is set to kick in on March 1Now Republicans , led by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan are making sure the public realizes where to point the finger of blame if the package can not be stopped. “ Do n't forget it 's the president that proposed the sequester and designed the sequester , ” the Wisconsin Republican said on ABC News ’ This Week . `` House Republicans twice passed legislation replacing the sequester with smarter cuts in other areas of government. ” Ryan said House Republicans are still working on plans to replace the sequester but said that with just two weeks before it starts he believes it will occur.The Senate has n't yet passed a spending bill to replace the sequester , Ryan said , noting Obama “ gave a speech showing he 'd like to replace it , but he has n't put any details out there. ” In his State of the Union Address on Feb. 12 , the president explained that in 2011 , Congress passed a law that said if both parties could not agree on spending cuts , “ about a trillion dollars worth of budget cuts would automatically go into effect this year. ” Obama said the “ sudden , harsh , arbitrary cuts would jeopardize military readiness . They devastate priorities like education and energy and medical research , and they would certainly slow our recovery and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs ... these cuts , known here in Washington as the sequester , are a really bad idea. ” But Ryan said the cuts are looming — and will probably happen — “ because the president back in the last session of congress refused to cut spending in any place and therefore we wound up with the sequester. ” While Ryan in the past has said that he and other conservatives are fighting for statutory caps on spending , he said Sunday he was talking about budget caps on discretionary spending , which occurred and the party wanted them. “ Everybody wants budget caps , ” Ryan said , pointing out “ the sequester we 're talking about now was backing up the supercommittee. ” The committee was supposed to have come up with $ 1.2 trillion in savings , Ryan said , and Republicans offered even higher revenues in exchange of spending cuts. “ It was rejected by the president and the Democrats , so no resolution occurred and therefore the sequester is occurring , ” Ryan said “ When you have no budget passing the Senate for four years , when the president is going to be about a month late in proposing his budget , there 's no leadership on the other side of the aisle and therefore no agreement. ” Ryan is not the only person who is adamant that the sequester blame lies on Obama ’ s shoulders . Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward , sitting on the discussion panel on Fox News Sunday , also said the sequester was the White House 's idea. “ It was the White House , it was Obama and Jack Lew and Rob Nabors who went to the Democratic leader in the Senate Harry Reid and said this is the solution , ” said Woodward. “ But everyone has their fingerprints on this , ” he added . “ What is important about it is , it is a governing travesty . `` The idea that you are going to go around and in random ways just cut things , it would be like a family that has to cut their budget , saying , oh , let 's cut the medicine that keeps the children alive . It is stupid. ” Woodward said the White House does n't dispute proposing the sequester , “ and they really do n't want to talk about the origins of the sequester now. ” House Speaker John Boehner also blames the White House for the sequester . “ It ’ s taking a meat axe to government spending , ” he said following the State of the Union speech. “ That ’ s why the president outght to be forthcoming about a plan to replace the sequester.His Number Two , Majority Leader Eric Cantor agreed with Boehner that the GOP will do what it can to avoid the cuts kicking in . “ We mean business , Mr. President . We are willing to work with you , ” he said.The threat of the sequester starting has been made worse by Congress ’ decision to take a 10-day President ’ s Day break . It won ’ t return to session until Feb. 25 , giving it just four working days to find a solution . Obama spent his weekend playing golf in Florida , including a game with Tiger Woods.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claims Democrats will issue their answer at some point in that time. “ Democrats believe the right way to eliminate the deficit is to target waste and abuse with smart spending cuts with closing tax loopholes , '' Reid said.But Reid ’ s decision to hold off , just adds to the brinksmanship that Obama slammed during his address , when he said , “ The greatest nation on Earth can not keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next . Let ’ s agree , right here , right now , to keep the people ’ s government open , pay our bills on time , and always uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America. “ The American people have worked too hard , for too long , rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause another , ” the president said .
|
Declassified:
‘Financial War’ Could Wipe Out 50% of Your Wealth
Declassified:
‘Financial War’ Could Wipe Out 50% of Your Wealth
President Barack Obama returned to Washington on Monday after a three-day Florida golfing trip with time running out to find ways to avoid his own brainchild plan of $1 trillion in across-the-board cuts.The looming sequester, which Obama thought up, despite him now labeling it a "really bad idea" is set to kick in on March 1Now Republicans, led by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan are making sure the public realizes where to point the finger of blame if the package cannot be stopped.“Don't forget it's the president that proposed the sequester and designed the sequester,” the Wisconsin Republican said on ABC News’ This Week. "House Republicans twice passed legislation replacing the sequester with smarter cuts in other areas of government.”Ryan said House Republicans are still working on plans to replace the sequester but said that with just two weeks before it starts he believes it will occur.The Senate hasn't yet passed a spending bill to replace the sequester, Ryan said, noting Obama “gave a speech showing he'd like to replace it, but he hasn't put any details out there.”In his State of the Union Address on Feb. 12, the president explained that in 2011, Congress passed a law that said if both parties could not agree on spending cuts, “about a trillion dollars worth of budget cuts would automatically go into effect this year.”Obama said the “sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize military readiness. They devastate priorities like education and energy and medical research, and they would certainly slow our recovery and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs...these cuts, known here in Washington as the sequester, are a really bad idea.”But Ryan said the cuts are looming — and will probably happen — “because the president back in the last session of congress refused to cut spending in any place and therefore we wound up with the sequester.”While Ryan in the past has said that he and other conservatives are fighting for statutory caps on spending, he said Sunday he was talking about budget caps on discretionary spending, which occurred and the party wanted them.“Everybody wants budget caps,” Ryan said, pointing out “the sequester we're talking about now was backing up the supercommittee.”The committee was supposed to have come up with $1.2 trillion in savings, Ryan said, and Republicans offered even higher revenues in exchange of spending cuts.“It was rejected by the president and the Democrats, so no resolution occurred and therefore the sequester is occurring,” Ryan said “When you have no budget passing the Senate for four years, when the president is going to be about a month late in proposing his budget, there's no leadership on the other side of the aisle and therefore no agreement.”Ryan is not the only person who is adamant that the sequester blame lies on Obama’s shoulders. Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward, sitting on the discussion panel on Fox News Sunday, also said the sequester was the White House's idea.“It was the White House, it was Obama and Jack Lew and Rob Nabors who went to the Democratic leader in the Senate Harry Reid and said this is the solution,” said Woodward.“But everyone has their fingerprints on this,” he added. “What is important about it is, it is a governing travesty."The idea that you are going to go around and in random ways just cut things, it would be like a family that has to cut their budget, saying, oh, let's cut the medicine that keeps the children alive. It is stupid.”Woodward said the White House doesn't dispute proposing the sequester, “and they really don't want to talk about the origins of the sequester now.”House Speaker John Boehner also blames the White House for the sequester. “It’s taking a meat axe to government spending,” he said following the State of the Union speech.“That’s why the president outght to be forthcoming about a plan to replace the sequester.His Number Two, Majority Leader Eric Cantor agreed with Boehner that the GOP will do what it can to avoid the cuts kicking in. “We mean business, Mr. President. We are willing to work with you,” he said.The threat of the sequester starting has been made worse by Congress’ decision to take a 10-day President’s Day break. It won’t return to session until Feb. 25, giving it just four working days to find a solution. Obama spent his weekend playing golf in Florida, including a game with Tiger Woods.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claims Democrats will issue their answer at some point in that time.“Democrats believe the right way to eliminate the deficit is to target waste and abuse with smart spending cuts with closing tax loopholes," Reid said.But Reid’s decision to hold off, just adds to the brinksmanship that Obama slammed during his address, when he said, “The greatest nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next. Let’s agree, right here, right now, to keep the people’s government open, pay our bills on time, and always uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America.“The American people have worked too hard, for too long, rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause another,” the president said.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
lx0mGMWu01kBiygN
|
violence_in_america
|
Reason
| 22
|
https://reason.com/archives/2018/08/13/the-truth-behind-chicagos-violence
|
The Truth Behind Chicago's Violence
|
2018-08-13
|
Steve Chapman, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon
|
The bloodletting in Chicago last weekend , with 74 people shot , 12 fatally , was enough to horrify even locals , who are relatively inured to chronic slaughter at the hands of gun-wielding felons . `` Unbelievable , '' said state Rep. La Shawn Ford , a black Chicago Democrat who went so far as to call on President Donald Trump for help .
The shock was also evident beyond Chicago . Rudy Giuliani blamed Democrats in general and Mayor Rahm Emanuel in particular . The mayor 's legacy , he tweeted , is `` more murders in his city than ever before . '' Everywhere , there was agreement that the city 's mayhem is out of control and in urgent need of measures to contain it .
But do n't believe the hype . There are not , in fact , more murders in Chicago than ever before . The number of homicides peaked at 920 in 1991 . The death toll last year was 674—and that was down 15 percent from 2016 . This year , even with the latest frenzy of shootings , the number of homicides is 25 percent lower than it was at this point in 2017 .
These are real signs of progress , however tardy and insufficient . If this year 's trajectory holds , it would mean some 280 fewer people dying violently this year than just two years ago . Another year on this trend line would put the city about where it was in 2013—when the number of homicides hit the lowest level in 48 years .
Contrary to popular myth , cynically promoted by Trump and other outside critics , Chicago is not an exceptionally dangerous city . In terms of violent crime , it is less afflicted than a number of large cities , including St. Louis , Baltimore , and New Orleans .
Republicans blame unbroken Democratic control of Chicago for its mayhem . But partisan coloration is an unreliable indicator of crime patterns . Of the 10 states with the highest rates of violence , seven voted for Trump . Los Angeles , whose homicide rate is enviably low , has had only Democratic mayors since 2001 .
It 's easy to blame the mayor for the persistent bloodshed—and former police Superintendent Garry McCarthy , who is running against Emanuel in the February election , does not pass up the opportunity . McCarthy headed the Chicago Police Department from 2011 to 2015 , and he claims credit for the improvement that occurred in that period .
But he was also in charge of Chicago police when an officer shot and killed 17-year-old Laquan McDonald—a gross overreaction that police labored to cover up . The spike in murders began just after the release of dashcam video showing the victim walking away from police before being riddled with bullets . The revelation , which contradicted official accounts , sparked public outrage , particularly among African-Americans .
One problem in Chicago is the dismally low number of homicides that police are able to solve—about 1 in 6 . But the department 's poor reputation among many of the people most at risk discourages the sort of cooperation from citizens that cops need to catch the killers .
The city 's record of failing to discipline officers who resort to unjustified lethal force is corrosive . Last year , WBEZ reported that since 2007 , the city 's Independent Police Review Authority had `` investigated police shootings that have killed at least 130 people and injured 285 others '' —and `` found officers at fault in just two of those cases , both off-duty '' incidents .
The Chicago Reporter provided additional evidence . `` From 2012 to 2015 , the city spent more than $ 263 million on settlements , judgments and outside legal counsel for police misconduct , '' it found . If police want more help from the communities they serve , this is not the way to get it .
Despite these failures , the decline in homicides suggests that the city and the department are doing something right . But what that might be is hard to determine with any confidence .
The fight against crime ca n't be restricted to more or better policing . Chicago 's crime problem is concentrated in a small number of poor , blighted , mostly African-American neighborhoods . Those areas owe their plight largely to a sordid history of systemic , deliberate racial discrimination and violence , endemic poverty , and official neglect over decades .
The conditions that breed rampant crime in parts of Chicago came about not by accident but by policy . The recent attention shows that people here and elsewhere care about the violence . Do they care about fixing the causes ?
|
The bloodletting in Chicago last weekend, with 74 people shot, 12 fatally, was enough to horrify even locals, who are relatively inured to chronic slaughter at the hands of gun-wielding felons. "Unbelievable," said state Rep. La Shawn Ford, a black Chicago Democrat who went so far as to call on President Donald Trump for help.
The shock was also evident beyond Chicago. Rudy Giuliani blamed Democrats in general and Mayor Rahm Emanuel in particular. The mayor's legacy, he tweeted, is "more murders in his city than ever before." Everywhere, there was agreement that the city's mayhem is out of control and in urgent need of measures to contain it.
But don't believe the hype. There are not, in fact, more murders in Chicago than ever before. The number of homicides peaked at 920 in 1991. The death toll last year was 674—and that was down 15 percent from 2016. This year, even with the latest frenzy of shootings, the number of homicides is 25 percent lower than it was at this point in 2017.
These are real signs of progress, however tardy and insufficient. If this year's trajectory holds, it would mean some 280 fewer people dying violently this year than just two years ago. Another year on this trend line would put the city about where it was in 2013—when the number of homicides hit the lowest level in 48 years.
Contrary to popular myth, cynically promoted by Trump and other outside critics, Chicago is not an exceptionally dangerous city. In terms of violent crime, it is less afflicted than a number of large cities, including St. Louis, Baltimore, and New Orleans.
Republicans blame unbroken Democratic control of Chicago for its mayhem. But partisan coloration is an unreliable indicator of crime patterns. Of the 10 states with the highest rates of violence, seven voted for Trump. Los Angeles, whose homicide rate is enviably low, has had only Democratic mayors since 2001.
It's easy to blame the mayor for the persistent bloodshed—and former police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, who is running against Emanuel in the February election, does not pass up the opportunity. McCarthy headed the Chicago Police Department from 2011 to 2015, and he claims credit for the improvement that occurred in that period.
But he was also in charge of Chicago police when an officer shot and killed 17-year-old Laquan McDonald—a gross overreaction that police labored to cover up. The spike in murders began just after the release of dashcam video showing the victim walking away from police before being riddled with bullets. The revelation, which contradicted official accounts, sparked public outrage, particularly among African-Americans.
One problem in Chicago is the dismally low number of homicides that police are able to solve—about 1 in 6. But the department's poor reputation among many of the people most at risk discourages the sort of cooperation from citizens that cops need to catch the killers.
The city's record of failing to discipline officers who resort to unjustified lethal force is corrosive. Last year, WBEZ reported that since 2007, the city's Independent Police Review Authority had "investigated police shootings that have killed at least 130 people and injured 285 others"—and "found officers at fault in just two of those cases, both off-duty" incidents.
The Chicago Reporter provided additional evidence. "From 2012 to 2015, the city spent more than $263 million on settlements, judgments and outside legal counsel for police misconduct," it found. If police want more help from the communities they serve, this is not the way to get it.
Despite these failures, the decline in homicides suggests that the city and the department are doing something right. But what that might be is hard to determine with any confidence.
The fight against crime can't be restricted to more or better policing. Chicago's crime problem is concentrated in a small number of poor, blighted, mostly African-American neighborhoods. Those areas owe their plight largely to a sordid history of systemic, deliberate racial discrimination and violence, endemic poverty, and official neglect over decades.
The conditions that breed rampant crime in parts of Chicago came about not by accident but by policy. The recent attention shows that people here and elsewhere care about the violence. Do they care about fixing the causes?
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
SpxglTbufqXzy3AF
|
healthcare
|
Guest Writer
| 11
|
http://theweek.com/articles/707712/gops-better-care-act-better-than-think
|
The GOP's 'Better Care' act is better than you think
|
2017-06-27
|
Erica Grieder, Catherine Garcia, Joel Mathis, "Tim ODonnell"
|
There 's a lot to like about the Better Care Reconciliation Act , the health-care bill unveiled last week by Senate Republicans . As drafted , the proposal preserves the most worthy features of the Affordable Care Act while addressing some of its key flaws .
Many critics on the right ( like Rand Paul and Americans for Prosperity ) decry the plan as some watered-down ObamaCare lite . Many liberals , meanwhile , have reflexively tarred Better Care as an unmitigated evil being foisted upon America by heartless Republicans .
Both sides are wrong . The Better Care act is better than you think .
The Senate health-care bill is obviously more thoughtful than the House 's version , and not nearly as malign as many Democrats have summarily declared it to be . At first glance , it struck me as the kind of market-based plan conservative policy wonk Avik Roy , who once worked for Mitt Romney , would come up with if asked to replace ObamaCare . And on closer inspection , it is his plan , in key respects . That makes sense , given that Roy is the Republican Party 's go-to expert on health-care policy . And considering the context , his influence on the bill is reassuring ; when someone 's expertise is undisputed , some degree of humanity can be safely inferred .
Many on the left would dispute that , at least in this case . `` No tweaks by amendment can fix this monstrosity , '' tweeted Chris Murphy , the Democratic senator from Connecticut . `` If you vote for this evil , intellectually bankrupt bill , it will ruin millions of lives . '' The bill 's passage would , to be certain , have sweeping implications . But Republicans could make exactly the same normative claims about ObamaCare itself . They should n't , in my view ; it 's bad form to denounce people based on assumptions about their intent .
But if we 're going down this path , let 's at least be consistent about it : While the Affordable Care Act has surely helped millions of Americans , it has also still left millions of Americans uninsured , and many more with higher premiums and deductibles than they had in 2009 , when Democrats promised that their plan would deliver precisely the opposite , among other things .
Even now , many Democrats are reluctant to acknowledge that ObamaCare 's conservative critics were correct in predicting such problems , and that in some cases , at least , their objections were rooted in concern for the Americans who would be disproportionately affected by them , if so .
The left 's default position is that ObamaCare 's shortcomings are due to Republican obstructionism prior to its passage , and Republicans ' subsequent refusal to cooperate . `` I was careful to say again and again that while the Affordable Care Act represented a significant step forward for America , it was not perfect , nor could it be the end of our efforts , '' noted former President Obama in a statement criticizing the Senate health-care bill . He would , he added , be happy to support Republicans if they could just put together a plan demonstrably better than his , `` that covers as many people at less cost . ''
So , single-payer , right ? Nice . This is a discussion that Americans should have , at some point ; I 'm not convinced that it makes sense to think of health care as a market good in the first place . As it stands , however , that is how many Americans tend to think of it . And the Affordable Care Act , which passed in Congress without a single Republican vote , affirms the premise that we should think about health care this way : ObamaCare 's key provisions are about the government 's role in regulating , stabilizing , and expanding access to the market we already have , not in replacing it altogether .
The same is true of the Senate health-care bill , of course , and this brings us to a critical difference between the Better Care Reconciliation Act and the Affordable Care Act : The GOP 's plan genuinely accepts the premise that Obama and the Democrats merely conceded , and seemingly resent . This would explain why Rand Paul and Co. are grousing that the proposal amounts to `` ObamaCare lite '' — a revision that would leave the Affordable Care Act 's architecture and key regulations in place rather than smashing the law to rubble and lighting it on fire — and Democrats see it as a crime against humanity .
This also explains why there 's a lot to like about the Better Care Reconciliation Act . It 's a market-oriented plan that 's serious about the trade-offs involved in such an approach . If you want to remove some bureaucratic hurdles and government largesse from the health-care market , as many conservatives do , then some people will lose coverage , and others will see an increase in their out-of-pocket costs . That 's how markets work , even if the architects of ObamaCare refused to believe it .
And it 's worth noting that Better Care is realistic , not nihlistic . Like ObamaCare , it recognizes that the government can and should play a role in situations where the market , if left to its own devices , has merciless implications . Most significantly , it largely preserves the protections the 2009 law established for Americans with pre-existing conditions , and provides reinsurance for the insurers who might have balked at doing so . That was a humane and worthwhile achievement which Democrats deserve credit for , even if they are heartless monsters who left millions of Americans uninsured .
It seems possible , as it stands , that none of this matters . On Monday , the Congressional Budget Office released its score of the bill , which found , among other things , that passage of the legislation would result in an additional 22 million Americans being uninsured in 2026 , compared to projections based on the current law . The logic underlying this projection was debatable , but its political implications are clear cut . The Democrats who touted ObamaCare as a plan that would make comprehensive health insurance affordable to the average American are out of power , at the time being . But perhaps they will regain control of Congress in 2018 . And if so , we can all look forward to seeing them unveil their secret plan .
|
ADVERTISEMENT
There's a lot to like about the Better Care Reconciliation Act, the health-care bill unveiled last week by Senate Republicans. As drafted, the proposal preserves the most worthy features of the Affordable Care Act while addressing some of its key flaws.
This is, apparently, a controversial opinion.
Many critics on the right (like Rand Paul and Americans for Prosperity) decry the plan as some watered-down ObamaCare lite. Many liberals, meanwhile, have reflexively tarred Better Care as an unmitigated evil being foisted upon America by heartless Republicans.
Both sides are wrong. The Better Care act is better than you think.
The Senate health-care bill is obviously more thoughtful than the House's version, and not nearly as malign as many Democrats have summarily declared it to be. At first glance, it struck me as the kind of market-based plan conservative policy wonk Avik Roy, who once worked for Mitt Romney, would come up with if asked to replace ObamaCare. And on closer inspection, it is his plan, in key respects. That makes sense, given that Roy is the Republican Party's go-to expert on health-care policy. And considering the context, his influence on the bill is reassuring; when someone's expertise is undisputed, some degree of humanity can be safely inferred.
Many on the left would dispute that, at least in this case. "No tweaks by amendment can fix this monstrosity," tweeted Chris Murphy, the Democratic senator from Connecticut. "If you vote for this evil, intellectually bankrupt bill, it will ruin millions of lives." The bill's passage would, to be certain, have sweeping implications. But Republicans could make exactly the same normative claims about ObamaCare itself. They shouldn't, in my view; it's bad form to denounce people based on assumptions about their intent.
But if we're going down this path, let's at least be consistent about it: While the Affordable Care Act has surely helped millions of Americans, it has also still left millions of Americans uninsured, and many more with higher premiums and deductibles than they had in 2009, when Democrats promised that their plan would deliver precisely the opposite, among other things.
Even now, many Democrats are reluctant to acknowledge that ObamaCare's conservative critics were correct in predicting such problems, and that in some cases, at least, their objections were rooted in concern for the Americans who would be disproportionately affected by them, if so.
The left's default position is that ObamaCare's shortcomings are due to Republican obstructionism prior to its passage, and Republicans' subsequent refusal to cooperate. "I was careful to say again and again that while the Affordable Care Act represented a significant step forward for America, it was not perfect, nor could it be the end of our efforts," noted former President Obama in a statement criticizing the Senate health-care bill. He would, he added, be happy to support Republicans if they could just put together a plan demonstrably better than his, "that covers as many people at less cost."
So, single-payer, right? Nice. This is a discussion that Americans should have, at some point; I'm not convinced that it makes sense to think of health care as a market good in the first place. As it stands, however, that is how many Americans tend to think of it. And the Affordable Care Act, which passed in Congress without a single Republican vote, affirms the premise that we should think about health care this way: ObamaCare's key provisions are about the government's role in regulating, stabilizing, and expanding access to the market we already have, not in replacing it altogether.
The same is true of the Senate health-care bill, of course, and this brings us to a critical difference between the Better Care Reconciliation Act and the Affordable Care Act: The GOP's plan genuinely accepts the premise that Obama and the Democrats merely conceded, and seemingly resent. This would explain why Rand Paul and Co. are grousing that the proposal amounts to "ObamaCare lite" — a revision that would leave the Affordable Care Act's architecture and key regulations in place rather than smashing the law to rubble and lighting it on fire — and Democrats see it as a crime against humanity.
This also explains why there's a lot to like about the Better Care Reconciliation Act. It's a market-oriented plan that's serious about the trade-offs involved in such an approach. If you want to remove some bureaucratic hurdles and government largesse from the health-care market, as many conservatives do, then some people will lose coverage, and others will see an increase in their out-of-pocket costs. That's how markets work, even if the architects of ObamaCare refused to believe it.
And it's worth noting that Better Care is realistic, not nihlistic. Like ObamaCare, it recognizes that the government can and should play a role in situations where the market, if left to its own devices, has merciless implications. Most significantly, it largely preserves the protections the 2009 law established for Americans with pre-existing conditions, and provides reinsurance for the insurers who might have balked at doing so. That was a humane and worthwhile achievement which Democrats deserve credit for, even if they are heartless monsters who left millions of Americans uninsured.
It seems possible, as it stands, that none of this matters. On Monday, the Congressional Budget Office released its score of the bill, which found, among other things, that passage of the legislation would result in an additional 22 million Americans being uninsured in 2026, compared to projections based on the current law. The logic underlying this projection was debatable, but its political implications are clear cut. The Democrats who touted ObamaCare as a plan that would make comprehensive health insurance affordable to the average American are out of power, at the time being. But perhaps they will regain control of Congress in 2018. And if so, we can all look forward to seeing them unveil their secret plan.
|
www.theweek.com
| 2center
|
cmeBQK8wPidiggFl
|
sports
|
MarketWatch
| 22
|
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/15-women-accuse-washingtons-nfl-team-of-rampant-sexual-harassment-in-front-office-report-2020-07-16?mod=home-page
|
15 women accuse Washington’s NFL team of rampant sexual harassment in front office: report
|
2020-07-16
|
Mike Murphy
|
“ “ I have never been in a more hostile , manipulative , passive-aggressive environment … and I worked in politics . ” ”
That ’ s Julia Payne , a former vice president of communications with Washington , D.C. ’ s , NFL team , quoted in a Washington Post report late Thursday describing a “ nightmare ” workplace for women amid a team culture of misogyny and rampant sexual harassment .
Fifteen women told the Post they were harassed while working in the NFL team ’ s front office between 2006 and 2019 , 14 of whom requested anonymity because they were fearful of legal reprisals from the team . The Post cited interviews with more than 40 current and former team employees , as well as internal documents and text messages .
See also : Two ways Washington changing its ‘ Redskins ’ nickname could make the team money
One woman who agreed to be named , former marketing coordinator Emily Applegate , told the Post she cried at work daily due to the constant harassment and verbal abuse she and other women experienced from top team executives , and the indifference she received after she complained .
“ It was the most miserable experience of my life , ” she said . “ And we all tolerated it , because we knew if we complained — and they reminded us of this — there were 1,000 people out there who would take our job in a heartbeat . ”
Applegate and the other women gave the Post numerous examples of receiving unwelcome sexual comments or overtures , and being told to wear revealing clothing and to flirt with clients . “ I was propositioned basically every day at training camp , ” one woman told the Post , claiming a coach and staffers invited her to their hotel rooms .
Three male members of the team ’ s front office have left their jobs in the past week , all of whom were named in the Post report . Two other executives who were named left their jobs in 2015 and 2018 .
The team said Thursday it has hired a law firm to review the allegations .
While team owner Daniel Snyder was not accused of harassment , many of the women said he set a poor example and tolerated a toxic corporate atmosphere , claiming he verbally abused top executives , even allegedly forcing a male executive to do cartwheels for his entertainment during a staff meeting .
A number of women said their experiences with the team ruined lifelong ambitions . “ I am done with the NFL , ” one anonymous woman told the Post , saying it “ has killed any dream of a career in pro sports . ”
Last week , the team dropped its longtime nickname following decades of complaints that it was racist , following a revolt by team sponsors .
|
“ “I have never been in a more hostile, manipulative, passive-aggressive environment … and I worked in politics.” ”
That’s Julia Payne, a former vice president of communications with Washington, D.C.’s, NFL team, quoted in a Washington Post report late Thursday describing a “nightmare” workplace for women amid a team culture of misogyny and rampant sexual harassment.
Fifteen women told the Post they were harassed while working in the NFL team’s front office between 2006 and 2019, 14 of whom requested anonymity because they were fearful of legal reprisals from the team. The Post cited interviews with more than 40 current and former team employees, as well as internal documents and text messages.
See also: Two ways Washington changing its ‘Redskins’ nickname could make the team money
One woman who agreed to be named, former marketing coordinator Emily Applegate, told the Post she cried at work daily due to the constant harassment and verbal abuse she and other women experienced from top team executives, and the indifference she received after she complained.
“It was the most miserable experience of my life,” she said. “And we all tolerated it, because we knew if we complained — and they reminded us of this — there were 1,000 people out there who would take our job in a heartbeat.”
Applegate and the other women gave the Post numerous examples of receiving unwelcome sexual comments or overtures, and being told to wear revealing clothing and to flirt with clients. “I was propositioned basically every day at training camp,” one woman told the Post, claiming a coach and staffers invited her to their hotel rooms.
Three male members of the team’s front office have left their jobs in the past week, all of whom were named in the Post report. Two other executives who were named left their jobs in 2015 and 2018.
The team said Thursday it has hired a law firm to review the allegations.
While team owner Daniel Snyder was not accused of harassment, many of the women said he set a poor example and tolerated a toxic corporate atmosphere, claiming he verbally abused top executives, even allegedly forcing a male executive to do cartwheels for his entertainment during a staff meeting.
A number of women said their experiences with the team ruined lifelong ambitions. “I am done with the NFL,” one anonymous woman told the Post, saying it “has killed any dream of a career in pro sports.”
Last week, the team dropped its longtime nickname following decades of complaints that it was racist, following a revolt by team sponsors.
|
www.marketwatch.com
| 1right
|
rakCpFlyge4j1jn7
|
healthcare
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/us/politics/obama-administration-to-delay-health-law-requirement-until-2015.html?ref=us
|
Crucial Rule Is Delayed a Year for Obama's Health Law
|
2013-07-03
|
Jackie Calmes, Robert Pear
|
Under the provision to set up state-based marketplaces , subsidies are supposed to be available to many lower- and middle-income people who do not have access to coverage from employers or other sources . It may be difficult , however , for officials running the exchanges to know who is entitled to subsidies if employers do not report information on the coverage they provide to workers .
Enrollment in the exchanges is to begin Oct. 1 , with insurance coverage taking effect on Jan. 1 . “ We are on target to open the health insurance marketplace on Oct. 1 where small businesses and ordinary Americans will be able to go to one place to learn about their coverage options and make side-by-side comparisons of each plan ’ s price and benefits before they make their decision , ” Valerie Jarrett , Mr. Obama ’ s senior adviser and liaison to the business community , wrote on the White House Web site .
But even some supporters of the law dispute that the establishment of the health insurance exchanges is on schedule , especially since progress varies by state and some Republican-led states are resisting the health care law and withholding resources for putting it into effect .
Much of the administration ’ s public effort , especially at the Department of Health and Human Services , has been directed toward spreading the word to uninsured Americans , especially younger and healthy individuals whose participation is needed to help keep down premiums for everyone else . About 85 percent of Americans are insured , so most individuals will be unaffected , at least initially .
Behind the scenes , however , the administration has been fielding questions and criticisms from businesses about the reporting requirements — especially the Treasury Department , which has responsibility , given its oversight of the tax reporting system .
Employer groups were quick to applaud the delay . At the U.S. Chamber of Commerce , which has strongly opposed the law , Randy Johnson , senior vice president for labor , immigration and employee benefits , said in a statement , “ The administration has finally recognized the obvious — employers need more time and clarification of the rules of the road before implementing the employer mandate . ”
E. Neil Trautwein , a vice president of the National Retail Federation , said the delay “ will provide employers and businesses more time to update their health care coverage without threat of arbitrary punishment . ”
|
Under the provision to set up state-based marketplaces, subsidies are supposed to be available to many lower- and middle-income people who do not have access to coverage from employers or other sources. It may be difficult, however, for officials running the exchanges to know who is entitled to subsidies if employers do not report information on the coverage they provide to workers.
Enrollment in the exchanges is to begin Oct. 1, with insurance coverage taking effect on Jan. 1. “We are on target to open the health insurance marketplace on Oct. 1 where small businesses and ordinary Americans will be able to go to one place to learn about their coverage options and make side-by-side comparisons of each plan’s price and benefits before they make their decision,” Valerie Jarrett, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser and liaison to the business community, wrote on the White House Web site.
But even some supporters of the law dispute that the establishment of the health insurance exchanges is on schedule, especially since progress varies by state and some Republican-led states are resisting the health care law and withholding resources for putting it into effect.
Much of the administration’s public effort, especially at the Department of Health and Human Services, has been directed toward spreading the word to uninsured Americans, especially younger and healthy individuals whose participation is needed to help keep down premiums for everyone else. About 85 percent of Americans are insured, so most individuals will be unaffected, at least initially.
Behind the scenes, however, the administration has been fielding questions and criticisms from businesses about the reporting requirements — especially the Treasury Department, which has responsibility, given its oversight of the tax reporting system.
Employer groups were quick to applaud the delay. At the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has strongly opposed the law, Randy Johnson, senior vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits, said in a statement, “The administration has finally recognized the obvious — employers need more time and clarification of the rules of the road before implementing the employer mandate.”
E. Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation, said the delay “will provide employers and businesses more time to update their health care coverage without threat of arbitrary punishment.”
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
ZePkgk49PMd97fZ5
|
violence_in_america
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/05/hate-crime-charges-filed-in-chicago-beating-shown-on-facebook-live.html
|
Hate crime charges filed in Chicago beating streamed on Facebook Live
|
2017-01-05
|
Hate crime and aggravated battery charges were filed Thursday against four African American suspects who police say tortured a mentally challenged white man for as long as 48 hours , while shouting racial and anti-Donald Trump slurs -- and part of the attack was streamed on Facebook Live .
`` Let me be very clear : The actions in that video are reprehensible , '' Chicago Police Supt . Eddie Johnson told reporters during a news conference .
FACEBOOK LIVE ATTACK THE LATEST IN STRING OF ANTI-TRUMP ASSAULTS
The suspects -- Jordan Hill , 18 , Tesfaye Cooper , 18 , Brittany Covington , 18 , and Tanishia Covington , 24 -- were set to appear in Central Bond Court on Friday afternoon .
Police on Thursday filled in details from the case . The 18-year-old man 's parents had dropped him off at a McDonald 's in suburban Streamwood last weekend to hang out with Hill , who took him in a van to see the rest of the group in western Chicago , investigators said , adding that the man did n't seem to know Hill had just stolen the van .
FUROR ERUPTS OVER VIDEO OF OFFICER SLAMMING STUDENT TO FLOOR
The man 's parents apparently thought he 'd be spending the night with friends , according to police . They said he and Hill had gone to school together in Aurora , although they did n't see each other frequently .
Instead , investigators claimed the group kidnapped the man , keeping him tied up for hours or more with his mouth taped shut in an apartment on the city 's west side . The video showed him cowering in a corner while someone yelled `` F -- - white people ! '' and `` F -- - Donald Trump ! '' At one point , the man was held at knifepoint and told to curse the president-elect .
The video also showed the man being kicked and hit repeatedly , while his scalp was cut . The group apparently forced him to drink water from a toilet .
The worst of the attack had started out as a `` play fight '' that ultimately escalated , police said . They told reporters the man slept in the van during the ordeal .
The man finally escaped on Monday after a neighbor on a lower floor of the apartment building complained about the noise and threatened to call the cops , police said . They told reporters the suspects barged into the neighbor 's apartment , giving the man an opportunity to get out .
The four also face burglary charges in connection to the break-in .
A police officer finally encountered the disoriented man walking down a street on Monday wearing only an inside-out tank top , jean shorts and sandals , despite the frigid weather . The officer said it was clear the man had been bloodied and battered .
Police became aware on Tuesday of the heinous video footage , FOX32 reported .
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest would n't say if he thought the incident was a hate crime , but did discuss the callous nature of the crime .
`` They do demonstrate a level of depravity that is an outrage to a lot of Americans , '' Earnest said . `` I have not spoken to the president but I 'm confident he would be angered by the images depicted . ''
The suspects could be heard saying they wanted the video to go viral .
Hill was charged with aggravated kidnapping , hate crime , aggravated unlawful restraint , aggravated battery with a deadly weapon , robbery , residential burglary ; Cooper was charged with aggravated kidnapping , hate crime , aggravated unlawful restraint , aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and residential burglary ; Brittany Covington was charged with aggravated kidnapping , hate crime , aggravated unlawful restraint , aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and residential burglary ; Tanishia Covington was charged with aggravated kidnapping , hate crime , aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon .
Hill is from Carpentersville and the others are Chicago residents .
|
Hate crime and aggravated battery charges were filed Thursday against four African American suspects who police say tortured a mentally challenged white man for as long as 48 hours, while shouting racial and anti-Donald Trump slurs -- and part of the attack was streamed on Facebook Live.
"Let me be very clear: The actions in that video are reprehensible," Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson told reporters during a news conference.
FACEBOOK LIVE ATTACK THE LATEST IN STRING OF ANTI-TRUMP ASSAULTS
The suspects -- Jordan Hill, 18, Tesfaye Cooper, 18, Brittany Covington, 18, and Tanishia Covington, 24 -- were set to appear in Central Bond Court on Friday afternoon.
Police on Thursday filled in details from the case. The 18-year-old man's parents had dropped him off at a McDonald's in suburban Streamwood last weekend to hang out with Hill, who took him in a van to see the rest of the group in western Chicago, investigators said, adding that the man didn't seem to know Hill had just stolen the van.
FUROR ERUPTS OVER VIDEO OF OFFICER SLAMMING STUDENT TO FLOOR
The man's parents apparently thought he'd be spending the night with friends, according to police. They said he and Hill had gone to school together in Aurora, although they didn't see each other frequently.
Instead, investigators claimed the group kidnapped the man, keeping him tied up for hours or more with his mouth taped shut in an apartment on the city's west side. The video showed him cowering in a corner while someone yelled "F--- white people!" and "F--- Donald Trump!" At one point, the man was held at knifepoint and told to curse the president-elect.
The video also showed the man being kicked and hit repeatedly, while his scalp was cut. The group apparently forced him to drink water from a toilet.
The worst of the attack had started out as a "play fight" that ultimately escalated, police said. They told reporters the man slept in the van during the ordeal.
The man finally escaped on Monday after a neighbor on a lower floor of the apartment building complained about the noise and threatened to call the cops, police said. They told reporters the suspects barged into the neighbor's apartment, giving the man an opportunity to get out.
The four also face burglary charges in connection to the break-in.
A police officer finally encountered the disoriented man walking down a street on Monday wearing only an inside-out tank top, jean shorts and sandals, despite the frigid weather. The officer said it was clear the man had been bloodied and battered.
Police became aware on Tuesday of the heinous video footage, FOX32 reported.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest wouldn't say if he thought the incident was a hate crime, but did discuss the callous nature of the crime.
"They do demonstrate a level of depravity that is an outrage to a lot of Americans," Earnest said. "I have not spoken to the president but I'm confident he would be angered by the images depicted."
The suspects could be heard saying they wanted the video to go viral.
They now face a bevy of charges.
Hill was charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, robbery, residential burglary; Cooper was charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and residential burglary; Brittany Covington was charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and residential burglary; Tanishia Covington was charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.
Hill is from Carpentersville and the others are Chicago residents.
Click for more from Fox 32.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
Yub2IhDh8HHDxyT2
|
|
lgbt_rights
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2019/12/19/j-k-rowling-transgender-comments-maya-forstater-glaad-response/2701579001/
|
J.K. Rowling sparks controversy for transgender comments; GLAAD responds
|
2019-12-19
|
The `` Harry Potter '' author has come under fire for tweeting a message of support Thursday for Maya Forstater , a researcher who lost her job at a think tank for stating that people can not change their biological sex .
`` Dress however you please , '' Rowling wrote . `` Call yourself whatever you like . Sleep with any consenting adult who ’ ll have you . Live your best life in peace and security . But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real ? # IStandWithMaya # ThisIsNotADrill ''
The “ Harry Potter ” author , otherwise known for her liberal political views , was label by many on Twitter as a TERF ( Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist ) . The hashtag `` # JKRowlingIsATerf '' was a top trending topic that day .
A spokesperson for Rowling told ███ the author would not have any further comment .
The researcher was a visiting fellow at the Centre for Global Development , which in March declined to renew her contract . A London judge this week upheld her dismissal , finding that her views of sex and gender were “ absolutist '' and `` incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others . ''
Forstater shared a copy of the judge 's ruling on Twitter .
`` I struggle to express the shock and disbelief I feel at reading this judgment , '' she wrote . `` My belief as i set out in my witness statement is that sex is a biological fact & is immutable . There are two sexes . Men are male . Women are female . It is impossible to change sex . These were until very recently understood as basic facts of life . ''
The researcher noted she will use `` preferred pronouns '' as a `` matter of courtesy '' and that everyone `` should be free to express themselves , to break free of gender stereotypes and to live free of violence , harassment and discrimination . ''
`` But this does not require removing people ’ s freedom to speak about objective reality , or to discuss proposed changes to law and to government policies clearly , '' she added .
In a statement to ███ Thursday , GLAAD 's head of talent Anthony Ramos condemned Rowling 's support for Forstater .
`` J.K. Rowling , whose books gave kids hope that they could work together to create a better world , has now aligned herself with an anti-science ideology that denies the basic humanity of people who are transgender , '' he wrote . `` Trans men , trans women , and non-binary people are not a threat , and to imply otherwise puts trans people at risk . Now is the time for allies who know and support trans people to speak up and support their fundamental right to be treated equally and fairly . ''
Rowling 's tweet stirred controversy , with some criticizing the author and others defending her .
Among those criticizing her was the Human Rights Campaign , which tweeted : “ Trans women are women . Trans men are men . Non-binary people are non-binary . CC : JK Rowling . ”
J.K. Rowling says Dumbledore , Grindelwald had sexual relationship ; fans mourn missed opportunity
`` This is incredibly disappointing to see , from someone whose writing espouses so much kindness , '' wrote @ LouisatheLast . `` Ms. Forstater has the right to think what she pleases , but she does not have the right to expect that employers will always be okay with that . Trans people have to go to work too . ''
`` As a gay man that found safety in Hogwarts throughout my childhood - knowing that Trans people wouldn ’ t be able to have that safety breaks my heart , '' wrote user @ shahmiruk .
More : 'Harry Potter ' author JK Rowling gives $ 18.8 million gift for MS research
Some Twitter users backed Rowling and slammed the criticism directed at her .
`` The one time you say something reasonable and everyone ’ s canceling you , '' wrote @ MsBlaireWhite .
`` Just in case you needed any further proof that the Left is the party of raging intolerance , cancel culture , blind hypocrisy , and the full refusal to compromise on even the most reasonable of ideas outside their 'woke ' insanity .... here we are , watching them cannibalize their own , '' wrote @ iheartmindy .
J.K. Rowling mocks Trump with sarcasm : His Twitter rant is study of quiet strength
|
USA TODAY
J.K. Rowling has cast a spell of controversy.
The "Harry Potter" author has come under fire for tweeting a message of support Thursday for Maya Forstater, a researcher who lost her job at a think tank for stating that people cannot change their biological sex.
"Dress however you please," Rowling wrote. "Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill"
The “Harry Potter” author, otherwise known for her liberal political views, was label by many on Twitter as a TERF (Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist). The hashtag "#JKRowlingIsATerf" was a top trending topic that day.
A spokesperson for Rowling told USA TODAY the author would not have any further comment.
The researcher was a visiting fellow at the Centre for Global Development, which in March declined to renew her contract. A London judge this week upheld her dismissal, finding that her views of sex and gender were “absolutist" and "incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others."
Forstater shared a copy of the judge's ruling on Twitter.
"I struggle to express the shock and disbelief I feel at reading this judgment," she wrote. "My belief as i set out in my witness statement is that sex is a biological fact & is immutable. There are two sexes. Men are male. Women are female. It is impossible to change sex. These were until very recently understood as basic facts of life."
The researcher noted she will use "preferred pronouns" as a "matter of courtesy" and that everyone "should be free to express themselves, to break free of gender stereotypes and to live free of violence, harassment and discrimination."
"But this does not require removing people’s freedom to speak about objective reality, or to discuss proposed changes to law and to government policies clearly," she added.
In a statement to USA TODAY Thursday, GLAAD's head of talent Anthony Ramos condemned Rowling's support for Forstater.
"J.K. Rowling, whose books gave kids hope that they could work together to create a better world, has now aligned herself with an anti-science ideology that denies the basic humanity of people who are transgender," he wrote. "Trans men, trans women, and non-binary people are not a threat, and to imply otherwise puts trans people at risk. Now is the time for allies who know and support trans people to speak up and support their fundamental right to be treated equally and fairly."
Rowling's tweet stirred controversy, with some criticizing the author and others defending her.
Among those criticizing her was the Human Rights Campaign, which tweeted: “Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary people are non-binary. CC: JK Rowling.”
J.K. Rowling says Dumbledore, Grindelwald had sexual relationship; fans mourn missed opportunity
"This is incredibly disappointing to see, from someone whose writing espouses so much kindness," wrote @LouisatheLast. "Ms. Forstater has the right to think what she pleases, but she does not have the right to expect that employers will always be okay with that. Trans people have to go to work too."
"As a gay man that found safety in Hogwarts throughout my childhood - knowing that Trans people wouldn’t be able to have that safety breaks my heart," wrote user @shahmiruk.
More:'Harry Potter' author JK Rowling gives $18.8 million gift for MS research
Some Twitter users backed Rowling and slammed the criticism directed at her.
"The one time you say something reasonable and everyone’s canceling you," wrote @MsBlaireWhite.
"Just in case you needed any further proof that the Left is the party of raging intolerance, cancel culture, blind hypocrisy, and the full refusal to compromise on even the most reasonable of ideas outside their 'woke' insanity....here we are, watching them cannibalize their own," wrote @iheartmindy.
J.K. Rowling mocks Trump with sarcasm: His Twitter rant is study of quiet strength
Contributing: Associated Press
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
6JBks55LyuNfJFQa
|
|
us_senate
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/22/senate-obamacare-repeal-republicans-secrets-239837
|
Senate GOP to bring Obamacare repeal bill out of the shadows
|
2017-06-22
|
Adam Cancryn, Burgess Everett, Adriel Bettelheim
|
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is still short the 50 votes he needs to pass the bill , with several senators saying they ’ re withholding their support until they see final legislation . | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Senate GOP reveals Obamacare repeal bill but still lacks the votes After weeks of work behind closed doors , the GOP released its plan and is now trying to find the votes to pass it .
Senate Republican leaders unveiled their long-secret plan to repeal Obamacare Thursday , formally kicking off the search for the 50 votes needed for passage amid stark party divisions .
Just hours after Republicans were briefed on the bill , four conservatives put out a statement saying they were withholding their support for the plan . A number of moderate GOP senators , meanwhile , said they were still poring through the the 142-page bill , which was crafted after weeks of work behind closed doors .
The broad contours of the plan — which would tear down large parts of the 2010 health law , cap one of the nation ’ s biggest entitlement programs and overhaul one-sixth of the U.S. economy — have come into focus in recent days .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing for a vote as early as next Thursday , ahead of Congress ’ July 4 recess and before more opposition can mount .
But the Kentucky Republican is still short the 50 votes he needs to pass the bill .
GOP Sens . Ted Cruz , Ron Johnson , Mike Lee and Rand Paul said in a statement Thursday that they are `` not ready '' to support the measure , though they remained open to voting for it after further negotiations .
`` It does not appear this draft as written will accomplish the most important promise that we made to Americans : to repeal Obamacare and lower their health care costs , '' they said .
Cruz is pushing for an amendment to allow catastrophic , low premium plans , but it 's not clear if the parliamentarian will allow them , according to Republicans .
Since Senate Democrats are unified in their resistance , Republicans are using a fast-track process that can evade filibusters . But they can only afford two defections and still maintain the thin majority needed to pass the repeal bill .
Sign up here for ███ Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox . Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats immediately took to the floor to blast the plan .
“ The president said the Senate bill needed heart , ” he said . “ The way this bill cuts health care is heartless . The president said the House bill was mean . The Senate bill may be meaner . ”
When asked if the Senate plan has enough heart at a White House event Thursday , President Donald Trump replied , “ A little negotiation , but it 's going to be very good. ” Later , he tweeted that he was `` very supportive '' of the plan .
Former President Barack Obama blasted the Senate bill as a `` massive transfer of wealth '' that would skyrocket the cost of health care for poor and middle-class Americans .
`` It hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries , paid for by cutting health care for everybody else , '' Obama wrote in a Facebook post . `` Simply put , if there ’ s a chance you might get sick , get old , or start a family – this bill will do you harm . ''
The Congressional Budget Office has n't yet weighed in on how many fewer Americans are likely to be insured under the Republican plan , or answered the crucial political question of whether premiums would be reduced . That report is expected by early next week , setting up a sprint to gather votes ahead of a potential late-week vote .
The House bill , whose fundamental framework can be seen in the Senate plan , would leave 23 million fewer Americans insured over the next decade , according to CBO .
The Senate bill — blandly dubbed the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 — eliminates Obamacare ’ s mandates and hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes on the wealthy and the health industry . Notably , it doesn ’ t impose any new requirement that people purchase or maintain coverage — a major element that Republican leaders said they ’ re still working on .
The bill would also phase out Obamacare 's Medicaid expansion over three years beginning in 2021 and make deep cuts to the long-term Medicaid program , while allowing states to impose work requirements on certain beneficiaries . It keeps the structure of Obamacare 's insurance subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance , but tweaks them to cover only those making up to 350 percent of the federal poverty line — down from the 400 percent covered under Obamacare .
The bill bars the use of subsidies for plans that include abortion coverage , though some Republicans have said that the provision may not survive due to the Senate 's strict procedural rules under reconciliation . Planned Parenthood would be defunded for one year .
Obamacare 's $ 1 billion Prevention and Public Health Fund , which was designed to tackle threats like Zika and pay for preventive health services , would be eliminated by 2018 .
Senate Republicans would allow states to opt out of some of Obamacare ’ s insurance requirements , including one requiring states to have an exchange , as well as rules for what benefits insurers must cover , what qualifies as a health plan , and the actuarial value of the plans . Those waivers are aimed at loosening oversight of insurers and paving the way toward even lower premiums , though they could also prompt insurers to dramatically cut benefits and increase deductibles .
The bill wo n't allow states to waive Obamacare requirements that insurers accept everyone and charge the same rates , with few exceptions . The House waived the latter requirement , triggering a storm of criticism that it was abandoning people with pre-existing conditions .
Still , the Senate bill was met with near-universal backlash from patient advocates , hospitals and public health organizations .
Republicans are holding out hope that health insurance groups will ultimately come to the legislation 's defense , some senators said . But the bill 's fate will rest on how factions on either end of the conference 's ideological spectrum react to the bill 's sweeping proposals .
Indeed , conservatives , moderates and senators from Medicaid expansion states all remained on the fence even after coming out of the meeting .
`` By the time I get back to my office I 'm told I 'll have a copy , '' said Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska ) , a key moderate swing vote . `` There was no paper . ... I want to get back to my office and actually take a look at it . ''
Along with other Medicaid expansion-state senators , like Ohio 's Rob Portman and West Virginia 's Shelley Moore Capito , Murkowski is worried about the consequences of cutting off Obamacare 's enhanced funding so quickly , and pushed instead for rolling back expansion over as many as seven years .
Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins have also warned against defunding Planned Parenthood as part of the bill , and expressed reservations about the impact certain provisions may have on elderly Americans ' ability to afford coverage .
And among conservatives , there remain serious concerns over whether the repeal bill amounts to a `` true '' repeal of Obamacare and the regulations it imposes on the health care system .
Freedomworks , a conservative advocacy group , panned the proposal as `` an amendment to ObamaCare '' rather than a repeal , and urged Paul , Lee and Cruz to hold out until their demands are met .
Senate Republican leaders have spent the last few weeks trying to manage that delicate ideological balance , in hopes of charting a narrow path to 50 votes
Still , Republicans said Thursday 's all-conference meeting demonstrated there are still a number of issues yet to be solved .
`` It 's obviously a discussion draft , '' said Sen. John Thune ( R-S.D. ) . `` So we 've got members who are going to be interested in looking at the text and see what they can do to refine , improve and dial things accordingly to try to figure out how we get 50 votes . ''
|
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is still short the 50 votes he needs to pass the bill, with several senators saying they’re withholding their support until they see final legislation. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Senate GOP reveals Obamacare repeal bill but still lacks the votes After weeks of work behind closed doors, the GOP released its plan and is now trying to find the votes to pass it.
Senate Republican leaders unveiled their long-secret plan to repeal Obamacare Thursday, formally kicking off the search for the 50 votes needed for passage amid stark party divisions.
Just hours after Republicans were briefed on the bill, four conservatives put out a statement saying they were withholding their support for the plan. A number of moderate GOP senators, meanwhile, said they were still poring through the the 142-page bill, which was crafted after weeks of work behind closed doors.
Story Continued Below
The broad contours of the plan — which would tear down large parts of the 2010 health law, cap one of the nation’s biggest entitlement programs and overhaul one-sixth of the U.S. economy — have come into focus in recent days.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing for a vote as early as next Thursday, ahead of Congress’ July 4 recess and before more opposition can mount.
But the Kentucky Republican is still short the 50 votes he needs to pass the bill.
GOP Sens. Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, Mike Lee and Rand Paul said in a statement Thursday that they are "not ready" to support the measure, though they remained open to voting for it after further negotiations.
"It does not appear this draft as written will accomplish the most important promise that we made to Americans: to repeal Obamacare and lower their health care costs," they said.
Cruz is pushing for an amendment to allow catastrophic, low premium plans, but it's not clear if the parliamentarian will allow them, according to Republicans.
Since Senate Democrats are unified in their resistance, Republicans are using a fast-track process that can evade filibusters. But they can only afford two defections and still maintain the thin majority needed to pass the repeal bill.
Sign up here for POLITICO Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats immediately took to the floor to blast the plan.
“The president said the Senate bill needed heart,” he said. “The way this bill cuts health care is heartless. The president said the House bill was mean. The Senate bill may be meaner.”
When asked if the Senate plan has enough heart at a White House event Thursday, President Donald Trump replied, “A little negotiation, but it's going to be very good.” Later, he tweeted that he was "very supportive" of the plan.
Former President Barack Obama blasted the Senate bill as a "massive transfer of wealth" that would skyrocket the cost of health care for poor and middle-class Americans.
"It hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else," Obama wrote in a Facebook post. "Simply put, if there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family – this bill will do you harm."
The Congressional Budget Office hasn't yet weighed in on how many fewer Americans are likely to be insured under the Republican plan, or answered the crucial political question of whether premiums would be reduced. That report is expected by early next week, setting up a sprint to gather votes ahead of a potential late-week vote.
The House bill, whose fundamental framework can be seen in the Senate plan, would leave 23 million fewer Americans insured over the next decade, according to CBO.
The Senate bill — blandly dubbed the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 — eliminates Obamacare’s mandates and hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes on the wealthy and the health industry. Notably, it doesn’t impose any new requirement that people purchase or maintain coverage — a major element that Republican leaders said they’re still working on.
The bill would also phase out Obamacare's Medicaid expansion over three years beginning in 2021 and make deep cuts to the long-term Medicaid program, while allowing states to impose work requirements on certain beneficiaries. It keeps the structure of Obamacare's insurance subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance, but tweaks them to cover only those making up to 350 percent of the federal poverty line — down from the 400 percent covered under Obamacare.
The bill bars the use of subsidies for plans that include abortion coverage, though some Republicans have said that the provision may not survive due to the Senate's strict procedural rules under reconciliation. Planned Parenthood would be defunded for one year.
Obamacare's $1 billion Prevention and Public Health Fund, which was designed to tackle threats like Zika and pay for preventive health services, would be eliminated by 2018.
Senate Republicans would allow states to opt out of some of Obamacare’s insurance requirements, including one requiring states to have an exchange, as well as rules for what benefits insurers must cover, what qualifies as a health plan, and the actuarial value of the plans. Those waivers are aimed at loosening oversight of insurers and paving the way toward even lower premiums, though they could also prompt insurers to dramatically cut benefits and increase deductibles.
The bill won't allow states to waive Obamacare requirements that insurers accept everyone and charge the same rates, with few exceptions. The House waived the latter requirement, triggering a storm of criticism that it was abandoning people with pre-existing conditions.
Still, the Senate bill was met with near-universal backlash from patient advocates, hospitals and public health organizations.
Republicans are holding out hope that health insurance groups will ultimately come to the legislation's defense, some senators said. But the bill's fate will rest on how factions on either end of the conference's ideological spectrum react to the bill's sweeping proposals.
Indeed, conservatives, moderates and senators from Medicaid expansion states all remained on the fence even after coming out of the meeting.
"By the time I get back to my office I'm told I'll have a copy," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a key moderate swing vote. "There was no paper. ... I want to get back to my office and actually take a look at it."
Along with other Medicaid expansion-state senators, like Ohio's Rob Portman and West Virginia's Shelley Moore Capito, Murkowski is worried about the consequences of cutting off Obamacare's enhanced funding so quickly, and pushed instead for rolling back expansion over as many as seven years.
Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins have also warned against defunding Planned Parenthood as part of the bill, and expressed reservations about the impact certain provisions may have on elderly Americans' ability to afford coverage.
McConnell full remarks on Senate health care bill
And among conservatives, there remain serious concerns over whether the repeal bill amounts to a "true" repeal of Obamacare and the regulations it imposes on the health care system.
Freedomworks, a conservative advocacy group, panned the proposal as "an amendment to ObamaCare" rather than a repeal, and urged Paul, Lee and Cruz to hold out until their demands are met.
Senate Republican leaders have spent the last few weeks trying to manage that delicate ideological balance, in hopes of charting a narrow path to 50 votes
Still, Republicans said Thursday's all-conference meeting demonstrated there are still a number of issues yet to be solved.
"It's obviously a discussion draft," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). "So we've got members who are going to be interested in looking at the text and see what they can do to refine, improve and dial things accordingly to try to figure out how we get 50 votes."
Brianna Ehley, Rachana Pradhan and Rachael Bade contributed to this report.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
OMkE1W5crxltx89b
|
immigration
|
The Week - News
| 11
|
http://theweek.com/article/index/272850/obama-immigration-and-the-southern-strategy-in-reverse
|
Obama, immigration, and the 'Southern Strategy in reverse'
|
2014-12-02
|
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, Damon Linker, Joel Mathis, Jeva Lange
|
President Obama 's executive action on immigration is , as The Atlantic 's Conor Friedersdorf so pithily put it , `` the right thing in the wrong way . ''
Granting a broad amnesty to illegal immigrants in the U.S. is good policy , and the just thing to do . I have tremendous respect for the perspective of my fellow conservatives , who warn that legal status for millions of often low-skilled immigrants could have a deleterious impact on the working class , already buffeted by the forces of globalization , economic sluggishness , and the class warfare of sexual liberalism . That is a robust empirical claim , but one that is ultimately unfalsifiable . So I err on the side that both my Christian and free-market beliefs point to : More immigrants is good . If nothing else , we should grant amnesty to demonstrate the poised generosity that is the hallmark of a confident civilization .
But the way in which President Obama is doing this is absolutely horrendous . It is hard to come up with words strong enough to condemn this unilateral decision . Say what you will about Congress ' inability to pass an immigration bill , but the Constitution does not include a secret `` If Congress is stupid , the president gets its powers '' clause . The term `` the imperial presidency '' is becoming uncomfortably literal . That is the most important takeaway from this event .
All of that said : The politics here are fascinating — and depressing .
Now , on the surface , the politics might seem obvious : Obama is ingratiating the Democrats with Latino voters , and also essentially trolling the Republican Party , putting them in a position in which they will have to remind everyone in America that most Republicans hate the idea of amnesty . As The Federalist 's Ben Domenech notes , this move by Obama hobbles immigration moderates like Chris Christie and Marco Rubio , who might be running in 2016 , and who will now be implicitly associated with Obama .
But there 's more to the politics than this . Obama 's action is part and parcel with a deeper phenomenon that RealClearPolitics ' Robert Tracinski has called the `` Southern Strategy in reverse . ''
The Southern Strategy refers to the national GOP 's decision in the 1970s to court Southern whites at the expense of minority votes , a strategy which , in many tellings , included the use of coded racial language to appeal to this group . The idea was that by winning supermajorities of white , working-class voters , the Republican Party could essentially write off other groups and still gain a majority .
Much has been said about the `` emerging Democratic majority '' and its coalition of African-Americans , Latinos , and upper-middle-class coastal elites . But , as Tracinski and the highly regarded political analyst Sean Trende note , this strategy also requires supermajorities of minority voters — and requires that the electorate be and remain polarized along racial lines .
As Tracinski wrote , `` because [ this strategy ] hitches the Democratic Party 's future to voting based on racial and ethnic loyalties , it is basically a strategy that consists of playing the race card from now until the end of time . '' In a particularly scathing line , he said , `` The Democrats have to hope for one Trayvon Martin case after another to keep voters aligned by race . ''
Or , you know , failing that , how about an unconstitutional amnesty ?
I rejoice that this move will make the lives of millions of people much better . But everything else about it is shameful and stinks to high heaven . And it will make our politics more toxic , more racially charged , and more polarized than ever before . That is change no one should believe in .
|
ADVERTISEMENT
President Obama's executive action on immigration is, as The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf so pithily put it, "the right thing in the wrong way."
Granting a broad amnesty to illegal immigrants in the U.S. is good policy, and the just thing to do. I have tremendous respect for the perspective of my fellow conservatives, who warn that legal status for millions of often low-skilled immigrants could have a deleterious impact on the working class, already buffeted by the forces of globalization, economic sluggishness, and the class warfare of sexual liberalism. That is a robust empirical claim, but one that is ultimately unfalsifiable. So I err on the side that both my Christian and free-market beliefs point to: More immigrants is good. If nothing else, we should grant amnesty to demonstrate the poised generosity that is the hallmark of a confident civilization.
But the way in which President Obama is doing this is absolutely horrendous. It is hard to come up with words strong enough to condemn this unilateral decision. Say what you will about Congress' inability to pass an immigration bill, but the Constitution does not include a secret "If Congress is stupid, the president gets its powers" clause. The term "the imperial presidency" is becoming uncomfortably literal. That is the most important takeaway from this event.
All of that said: The politics here are fascinating — and depressing.
Now, on the surface, the politics might seem obvious: Obama is ingratiating the Democrats with Latino voters, and also essentially trolling the Republican Party, putting them in a position in which they will have to remind everyone in America that most Republicans hate the idea of amnesty. As The Federalist's Ben Domenech notes, this move by Obama hobbles immigration moderates like Chris Christie and Marco Rubio, who might be running in 2016, and who will now be implicitly associated with Obama.
But there's more to the politics than this. Obama's action is part and parcel with a deeper phenomenon that RealClearPolitics' Robert Tracinski has called the "Southern Strategy in reverse."
The Southern Strategy refers to the national GOP's decision in the 1970s to court Southern whites at the expense of minority votes, a strategy which, in many tellings, included the use of coded racial language to appeal to this group. The idea was that by winning supermajorities of white, working-class voters, the Republican Party could essentially write off other groups and still gain a majority.
Much has been said about the "emerging Democratic majority" and its coalition of African-Americans, Latinos, and upper-middle-class coastal elites. But, as Tracinski and the highly regarded political analyst Sean Trende note, this strategy also requires supermajorities of minority voters — and requires that the electorate be and remain polarized along racial lines.
As Tracinski wrote, "because [this strategy] hitches the Democratic Party's future to voting based on racial and ethnic loyalties, it is basically a strategy that consists of playing the race card from now until the end of time." In a particularly scathing line, he said, "The Democrats have to hope for one Trayvon Martin case after another to keep voters aligned by race."
Or, you know, failing that, how about an unconstitutional amnesty?
I rejoice that this move will make the lives of millions of people much better. But everything else about it is shameful and stinks to high heaven. And it will make our politics more toxic, more racially charged, and more polarized than ever before. That is change no one should believe in.
|
www.theweek.com
| 2center
|
2KbJS8ENo0hxf1Q2
|
justice_department
|
Wall Street Journal - News
| 11
|
https://www.wsj.com/articles/doj-report-on-clinton-email-probe-1528935441?mod=article_inline
|
DOJ Clinton Report Blasts Comey, Agents, but Finds No Bias in Conclusion
|
Del Quentin Wilber, Aruna Viswanatha, Sadie Gurman, Del.Wilber Wsj.Com, Aruna.Viswanatha Wsj.Com, Sadie.Gurman Wsj.Com
|
A long-awaited watchdog report provided a sweeping and detailed rebuke of actions taken by former FBI Director James Comey to publicize details about the politically charged investigation into Hillary Clinton ’ s use of a private email server , but found no evidence that the probe was affected by bias or other political considerations .
The 500-page report also faulted Obama-era Justice Department leaders for not taking a firmer hand with Mr. Comey , and slammed multiple FBI employees involved in the investigation for sending politically charged text messages , saying the texts “ cast a cloud ” over the investigation and its credibility .
While providing the most definitive account of the probe , the report , released Thursday , didn ’ t settle long-simmering dissatisfaction among both Democrats and Republicans over the bureau ’ s handling of the investigation .
The report ’ s sharpest criticism was leveled at Mr. Comey , who was fired by President Donald Trump last May .
The inspector general ’ s office said it found “ unpersuasive ” Mr. Comey ’ s argument for why he ignored Justice Department policy on the Clinton email probe while hewing to it on the separate Russia and Clinton Foundation investigations .
But the report said investigative and prosecutorial decisions in the Clinton investigation were “ not unreasonable ” and could be justified on policy and legal grounds .
Mrs. Clinton ’ s allies have blamed Mr. Comey ’ s handling of the probe for putting Mr. Trump over the top in the November 2016 presidential election . At the same time , Mr. Trump and some Republicans maintain that actions by Mr. Comey and FBI agents during the Clinton probe showed bias against the president , which has also infected the special counsel ’ s probe into Russian interference in the election .
The report gave an unusually detailed accounting of one of the FBI ’ s highest profile investigations , its probe into whether Mrs. Clinton intended to transmit classified information on an unclassified , private email server while Secretary of State .
The sprawling inquiry examined the genesis of the probe , which was code-named Midyear Exam , investigative measures taken by prosecutors and FBI agents and Mr. Comey ’ s controversial public comments on the matter .
The inspector general ’ s office said it found the Justice Department ’ s conclusion not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton or her senior aides—based on a lack of evidence that her team intended to send classified information on unclassified systems— “ consistent with ” how the department had approached previous similar cases .
The report determined that Mr. Comey deviated from long-established policies in speaking publicly about the investigation at a news conference in July 2016 and sending a letter to Congress in the days before the election that disclosed the bureau had reopened the probe .
In his July 5 news conference , which was criticized at the time by former top Justice Department officials in both parties , Mr. Comey said the FBI was recommending no charges be filed against Mrs. Clinton . He also chastised the Democratic presidential candidate and her aides for being “ extremely careless ” in how they handled classified information .
“ We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to do so , and we found none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well-established Department policies , ” the report said .
Mr. Comey didn ’ t tell Justice Department leaders he would be speaking about the case until just before he publicly announced his conclusions on national television . Mr. Comey ’ s secrecy was intended to make it “ impractical for Department leadership to prevent him ” from delivering his public assessment , the inspector general said .
Mr. Comey said he was still weighing whether to speak publicly when then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch on June 27 held an impromptu meeting with former President Bill Clinton on her Justice Department jet on an Arizona tarmac .
The inspector general found Ms. Lynch ’ s failure to immediately recognize the problem created by the meeting was “ an error in judgment ” and also determined that her public responses to the controversy only created confusion . Mr. Comey said the meeting “ tipped ” the scales for him and he went forward with his press briefing on July 5 , the report said .
When Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch spoke that morning , the attorney general didn ’ t assert her authority as Mr. Comey ’ s boss , the inspector general concluded . “ We believe she should have instructed Comey to tell her what he intended to say beforehand , and should have discussed it with Comey , ” the report says .
“ We conclude that Comey ’ s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department practice and protocol , ” especially in criticizing “ uncharged conduct ” by Mrs. Clinton , the watchdog found . “ We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General . ”
Ms. Lynch said the report “ affirms that my actions had no political motivation or bias and complied with DOJ policies . ”
Mr. Comey was also criticized for engaging in “ ad hoc ” decision making when sending a letter to Congress just days before the 2016 election saying that the FBI had reopened the matter , after discovering Clinton-related emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner , a disgraced former congressman who was married to a Clinton aide .
Mr. Comey defended his actions to the inspector general by saying he had encountered unusual circumstances and did what he thought was best for the bureau and Justice Department . On Twitter , he wrote : “ The conclusions are reasonable , even though I disagree with some . People of good faith can see an unprecedented situation differently . I pray no Director faces it again . ”
In the course of its 18-month investigation , Inspector General Michael Horowitz ’ s staff also unearthed thousands of controversial text messages exchanged between Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel that disparaged Mr. Trump . The inspector general said his office was “ deeply troubled ” by the messages , which “ potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations . ”
“ Departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and Department norms , the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the Department as fair administrators of justice , ” the report concluded .
Of special focus in the report were FBI Agent Peter Strzok and now-former FBI lawyer Lisa Page , who exchanged thousands of text messages over the course of 2015 through 2017 . Mr. Strzok , who was romantically involved with Ms . Page , had led the Clinton probe and later was the top agent on Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s team investigating Russia ’ s interference in the 2016 election .
The texts “ sowed doubt ” about the FBI ’ s work , the report said , and “ created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. ” Still , the inspector general discovered no evidence that “ improper considerations , including political bias , directly affected the specific investigative decisions ” in the case .
The watchdog also examined how agents handled the discovery of Clinton-related emails on the laptop belonging to Mr. Weiner , and faulted the FBI for a monthlong delay between the discovery of the emails and investigative action by agents .
The inspector general said the texts raised questions about whether Mr. Strzok permitted political bias to cloud his judgment during one critical juncture in the investigation .
In September , an FBI agent working an unrelated case came across thousands of Clinton-related emails on Mr. Weiner ’ s laptop . Mr. Strzok and FBI officials learned about the emails in late September 2016 but took no official action for nearly a month , the inspector general concluded . The inspector general said it found no evidence that the laptop was “ deliberately placed on the back-burner . ”
In one previously unreported text , Mr. Strzok sent a text in August 2016 in response to a message from Ms . Page , who was worried that Mr. Trump might win the election . In his reply , Mr. Strzok wrote : “ No . No he ’ s not . We ’ ll stop it . ”
According to the report , Mr. Strzok stated that he believed his message was intended to reassure Ms . Page , and not suggest that he would somehow stop Mr. Trump .
A lawyer for Mr. Strzok , Aitan Goelman , said in a statement that the inspector general correctly concluded “ that there is no evidence that the political views of Special Agent Strzok and others in the FBI impacted the handling of the Clinton email investigation . ”
However , he said the report was flawed “ in its bizarre conclusion ” that the inspector general could n't rule out that bias may have affected his handling of the emails on the Weiner laptop . He noted that “ Special Agent Strzok openly admitted that he believed that the Russia investigation was far more important to American national security than the Clinton email investigation , this conclusion is evidence of Special Agent Strzok ’ s lucidity , not his bias . ”
Aside from Mr. Strzok and Ms . Page , the report also found that three other FBI employees , all on the Clinton investigation , swapped politically charged messages that were hostile toward Mr. Trump and supportive of Mrs. Clinton .
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the report “ reaffirmed the president ’ s suspicions about Comey ’ s conduct and about the political bias of some members of the FBI . ”
Democrats complained that Mr. Comey used a different standard in handling major cases involving the 2016 candidates . “ The FBI ’ s actions helped Donald Trump become president , ” Reps. Elijah Cummings ( D. , Md . ) and Jerrold Nadler ( D. , N.Y. ) said in a statement . “ Comey had a double-standard : He spoke publicly about the Clinton investigation while keeping secret from the American people the investigation of Donald Trump and Russia . ”
In the report , the inspector general also identified instances in which Mr. Comey used a personal Gmail email account to work on nonclassified documents , including drafts of all-staff messages he was working on , as well as a proposed opening statement for March 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee .
Mr. Comey told the inspector general that he didn ’ t have an unclassified FBI connection at home that worked , and that “ for unclassified work , I would use my personal laptop for word processing and then send it into the FBI. ” Because the messages were forwarded to work accounts and weren ’ t classified , Mr. Comey said he thought his practice complied with FBI regulations but wasn ’ t sure , according to the report .
The report found that Mr. Comey ’ s use of the personal account was inconsistent with Justice Department policy , which says personal email accounts should be used for work only in “ exigent circumstances . ”
The report also referred to Mr. Comey ’ s deputy , Andrew McCabe , a longtime agent who was fired by the Justice Department in March , a day shy of retiring with full benefits over allegations he misled investigators with the FBI and Inspector General over his role in an article in The Wall Street Journal .
The report didn ’ t examine those interactions , but it agreed with FBI ethics officials that Mr. McCabe hadn ’ t been required to recuse himself from overseeing the Clinton probe because his wife had run as a Democrat for a Virginia statehouse seat and had accepted campaign donations from a close Clinton ally ’ s political-action committee . “ McCabe did what he was supposed to do , ” the report said .
|
A long-awaited watchdog report provided a sweeping and detailed rebuke of actions taken by former FBI Director James Comey to publicize details about the politically charged investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, but found no evidence that the probe was affected by bias or other political considerations.
The 500-page report also faulted Obama-era Justice Department leaders for not taking a firmer hand with Mr. Comey, and slammed multiple FBI employees involved in the investigation for sending politically charged text messages, saying the texts “cast a cloud” over the investigation and its credibility.
While providing the most definitive account of the probe, the report, released Thursday, didn’t settle long-simmering dissatisfaction among both Democrats and Republicans over the bureau’s handling of the investigation.
The report’s sharpest criticism was leveled at Mr. Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump last May.
The inspector general’s office said it found “unpersuasive” Mr. Comey’s argument for why he ignored Justice Department policy on the Clinton email probe while hewing to it on the separate Russia and Clinton Foundation investigations.
But the report said investigative and prosecutorial decisions in the Clinton investigation were “not unreasonable” and could be justified on policy and legal grounds.
Mrs. Clinton’s allies have blamed Mr. Comey’s handling of the probe for putting Mr. Trump over the top in the November 2016 presidential election. At the same time, Mr. Trump and some Republicans maintain that actions by Mr. Comey and FBI agents during the Clinton probe showed bias against the president, which has also infected the special counsel’s probe into Russian interference in the election.
The report gave an unusually detailed accounting of one of the FBI’s highest profile investigations, its probe into whether Mrs. Clinton intended to transmit classified information on an unclassified, private email server while Secretary of State.
The sprawling inquiry examined the genesis of the probe, which was code-named Midyear Exam, investigative measures taken by prosecutors and FBI agents and Mr. Comey’s controversial public comments on the matter.
The inspector general’s office said it found the Justice Department’s conclusion not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton or her senior aides—based on a lack of evidence that her team intended to send classified information on unclassified systems—“consistent with” how the department had approached previous similar cases.
The report determined that Mr. Comey deviated from long-established policies in speaking publicly about the investigation at a news conference in July 2016 and sending a letter to Congress in the days before the election that disclosed the bureau had reopened the probe.
In his July 5 news conference, which was criticized at the time by former top Justice Department officials in both parties, Mr. Comey said the FBI was recommending no charges be filed against Mrs. Clinton. He also chastised the Democratic presidential candidate and her aides for being “extremely careless” in how they handled classified information.
“We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to do so, and we found none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well-established Department policies,” the report said.
Mr. Comey didn’t tell Justice Department leaders he would be speaking about the case until just before he publicly announced his conclusions on national television. Mr. Comey’s secrecy was intended to make it “impractical for Department leadership to prevent him” from delivering his public assessment, the inspector general said.
Mr. Comey said he was still weighing whether to speak publicly when then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch on June 27 held an impromptu meeting with former President Bill Clinton on her Justice Department jet on an Arizona tarmac.
The inspector general found Ms. Lynch’s failure to immediately recognize the problem created by the meeting was “an error in judgment” and also determined that her public responses to the controversy only created confusion. Mr. Comey said the meeting “tipped” the scales for him and he went forward with his press briefing on July 5, the report said.
When Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch spoke that morning, the attorney general didn’t assert her authority as Mr. Comey’s boss, the inspector general concluded. “We believe she should have instructed Comey to tell her what he intended to say beforehand, and should have discussed it with Comey,” the report says.
“We conclude that Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department practice and protocol,” especially in criticizing “uncharged conduct” by Mrs. Clinton, the watchdog found. “We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General.”
Ms. Lynch said the report “affirms that my actions had no political motivation or bias and complied with DOJ policies.”
Mr. Comey was also criticized for engaging in “ad hoc” decision making when sending a letter to Congress just days before the 2016 election saying that the FBI had reopened the matter, after discovering Clinton-related emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, a disgraced former congressman who was married to a Clinton aide.
Mr. Comey defended his actions to the inspector general by saying he had encountered unusual circumstances and did what he thought was best for the bureau and Justice Department. On Twitter, he wrote: “The conclusions are reasonable, even though I disagree with some. People of good faith can see an unprecedented situation differently. I pray no Director faces it again.”
In the course of its 18-month investigation, Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s staff also unearthed thousands of controversial text messages exchanged between Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel that disparaged Mr. Trump. The inspector general said his office was “deeply troubled” by the messages, which “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.”
“Departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and Department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the Department as fair administrators of justice,” the report concluded.
Of special focus in the report were FBI Agent Peter Strzok and now-former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who exchanged thousands of text messages over the course of 2015 through 2017. Mr. Strzok, who was romantically involved with Ms. Page, had led the Clinton probe and later was the top agent on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.
The texts “sowed doubt” about the FBI’s work, the report said, and “created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.” Still, the inspector general discovered no evidence that “improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions” in the case.
The watchdog also examined how agents handled the discovery of Clinton-related emails on the laptop belonging to Mr. Weiner, and faulted the FBI for a monthlong delay between the discovery of the emails and investigative action by agents.
The inspector general said the texts raised questions about whether Mr. Strzok permitted political bias to cloud his judgment during one critical juncture in the investigation.
In September, an FBI agent working an unrelated case came across thousands of Clinton-related emails on Mr. Weiner’s laptop. Mr. Strzok and FBI officials learned about the emails in late September 2016 but took no official action for nearly a month, the inspector general concluded. The inspector general said it found no evidence that the laptop was “deliberately placed on the back-burner.”
In one previously unreported text, Mr. Strzok sent a text in August 2016 in response to a message from Ms. Page, who was worried that Mr. Trump might win the election. In his reply, Mr. Strzok wrote: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”
According to the report, Mr. Strzok stated that he believed his message was intended to reassure Ms. Page, and not suggest that he would somehow stop Mr. Trump.
A lawyer for Mr. Strzok, Aitan Goelman, said in a statement that the inspector general correctly concluded “that there is no evidence that the political views of Special Agent Strzok and others in the FBI impacted the handling of the Clinton email investigation.”
The inspector general’s report looked at actions taken by Justice Department and FBI officials during the investigation of Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email server when she was secretary of state. Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press
However, he said the report was flawed “in its bizarre conclusion” that the inspector general couldn't rule out that bias may have affected his handling of the emails on the Weiner laptop. He noted that “Special Agent Strzok openly admitted that he believed that the Russia investigation was far more important to American national security than the Clinton email investigation, this conclusion is evidence of Special Agent Strzok’s lucidity, not his bias.”
Aside from Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page, the report also found that three other FBI employees, all on the Clinton investigation, swapped politically charged messages that were hostile toward Mr. Trump and supportive of Mrs. Clinton.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the report “reaffirmed the president’s suspicions about Comey’s conduct and about the political bias of some members of the FBI.”
Democrats complained that Mr. Comey used a different standard in handling major cases involving the 2016 candidates. “The FBI’s actions helped Donald Trump become president,” Reps. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) and Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) said in a statement. “Comey had a double-standard: He spoke publicly about the Clinton investigation while keeping secret from the American people the investigation of Donald Trump and Russia.”
In the report, the inspector general also identified instances in which Mr. Comey used a personal Gmail email account to work on nonclassified documents, including drafts of all-staff messages he was working on, as well as a proposed opening statement for March 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Comey told the inspector general that he didn’t have an unclassified FBI connection at home that worked, and that “for unclassified work, I would use my personal laptop for word processing and then send it into the FBI.” Because the messages were forwarded to work accounts and weren’t classified, Mr. Comey said he thought his practice complied with FBI regulations but wasn’t sure, according to the report.
The report found that Mr. Comey’s use of the personal account was inconsistent with Justice Department policy, which says personal email accounts should be used for work only in “exigent circumstances.”
The report also referred to Mr. Comey’s deputy, Andrew McCabe, a longtime agent who was fired by the Justice Department in March, a day shy of retiring with full benefits over allegations he misled investigators with the FBI and Inspector General over his role in an article in The Wall Street Journal.
From the Archives Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended his role in the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. Mr. Sessions cited the ‘significance of the error’ Mr. Comey made in handling the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email use. Photo: Getty (Originally Published Oct. 18, 2017)
The report didn’t examine those interactions, but it agreed with FBI ethics officials that Mr. McCabe hadn’t been required to recuse himself from overseeing the Clinton probe because his wife had run as a Democrat for a Virginia statehouse seat and had accepted campaign donations from a close Clinton ally’s political-action committee. “McCabe did what he was supposed to do,” the report said.
—Rebecca Ballhaus contributed to this article.
Write to Del Quentin Wilber at [email protected], Aruna Viswanatha at [email protected] and Sadie Gurman at [email protected]
|
www.wsj.com
| 2center
|
RlXtIPtw52T2lSoo
|
|
agriculture
|
Salon
| 00
|
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/04/gop_debunked_on_food_stamps_everything_they_say_about_snap_is_wrong/
|
GOP debunked on food stamps: Everything they say about SNAP is wrong
|
2013-12-04
|
Paul Rosenberg
|
Hilary Hoynes is a University of California at Berkeley economist who wrote a particularly notable paper last year . Instead of increasing dependency , as conservative critics have repeatedly claimed , Hoyen 's paper showed that , for women at least , food stamp use during pregnancy and early childhood has exactly the opposite impact of what conservatives allege : It actually increases economic self-sufficiency when children grow up , in the next generation .
That was just one of two main results reported in “ Long Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net , ” which Hoynes co-authored with Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach and Douglas Almond . As stated in the paper 's abstract , access to food stamps for women leads to `` increases in economic self-sufficiency ( increases in educational attainment , earnings , and income , and decreases in welfare participation ) . ” Hoynes and her colleagues took advantage of the fact that food stamp programs were established county-by-county over a period of years , creating a sort of “ natural experiment ” beginning half a century in the past .
“ Hoynes ’ work has been timely , innovative and revealing , ” said Arloc Sherman , a senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , which has highlighted Hoynes ' work this year as food stamps and the SNAP program have become a major subject of controversy . “ Hoynes and her collaborators have really broadened our understanding of how programs like food stamps not only relieve hardship in the moment but can trigger long-lasting gains in participating children ’ s later health and education . The implications of the research are considerable . In this long view , such assistance is not only helping struggling families to scrape by , it ’ s a good investment in the next generation of citizens and workers . ”
Hoynes herself said , “ This work indicates that there are important benefits of the safety net that to date have been ignored . They predict that a more generous safety net can reduce health disparities . More generally , the emerging evidence points to an important role for investments in early life -- and those investments generate important returns in terms of better health and economic outcomes in adulthood . ”
It 's a startling result in light of the onslaught of conservative claims to the contrary , but it 's somewhat less startling — though still quite illuminating — in light of what 's actually known about the impacts of hunger on childhood development back in the “ reality based community , ” where population-based studies of hunger impacts date back to the 1970s , when researchers first began reporting on the long-term , adult impacts on children born during and shortly after the so-called Dutch “ Hunger Winter , ” a period from November 1944 through May 1945 , when a large part of the Netherlands was subjected to drastically reduced rations under Nazi occupation .
But to really appreciate the significance of this research , one must also appreciate two other aspects of Hoynes ' recent research , which combine to provide a three-pronged counterattack on the right 's “ culture of dependency ” narrative . First , she has done previous research establishing short-term benefits — not just for food stamps , but also the for the earned income tax credit — specifically , a reduction in low-birthweight babies , a significant indicator of well-being . This research alone is sufficient to show that safety net programs are achieving the goals of bettering people 's lives , adding more weight to the already well-established statistics on poverty reduction . Second , she has done research into safety net program utilization over the course of economic recession and recovery , research that shows that the current levels of food stamp and other program use are in line with past history , and not a sign of any alleged “ explosion ” in a “ culture of dependency ” under Obama , as the right-wing noise machine would have it .
Thus , Hoynes ' work provides powerful evidence for a three-pronged counterattack against this conservative narrative , which has come to play a dominant role in Republican politics in the post-Bush/Obama/Tea Party era : 1 ) The safety net works in the short term , producing measurable improvements in newborn health ; 2 ) it works in the long term , improving health for both men and women , and reducing dependency among women in the next generation ; and 3 ) it works currently in much the same manner as it has worked in the past . The long-term effects findings are clearly the most remarkable , which is why they 're worth looking into more closely . But it 's the overall combination of evidence — along with the work of others working on other aspects of the safety net — that provides a robust picture of what the real-world safety net actually does to build better lives , pushing back against the onslaught of right-wing lies .
In July , for example , when House Republicans were first threatening massive food stamp cuts , the CBPP released a report , “ SNAP Enrollment Remains High Because the Job Market Remains Weak. ” It 's common sense , of course . As the report stated in its very first sentence , “ The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( SNAP , formerly known as the food stamp program ) historically has been the most responsive federal program after unemployment insurance in assisting families and communities during economic downturns , ” so it stands to reason that our notoriously bad job market would keep tens of millions of people on food stamps . CBPP began its analysis by citing Congressional Budget Office projections that “ as the labor market recovers , SNAP costs will decline markedly . CBO projects that by 2019 , SNAP costs will fall all of the way back to their mid-1990s level , measured as a share of gross domestic product ( GDP ) . ”
But as CBPP continued , they supplemented CBO data with the more detailed research that Hoynes took part in : “ In a new piece of research , economists Hilary Hoynes and Marianne Bitler examine the relationship between poverty and fluctuations in economic activity since 1980 and the historical responsiveness of SNAP , UI [ unemployment insurance ] , and other safety net programs over the business cycle . If SNAP had increased more in proportion to the unemployment rate over the past few years than it has historically , that would provide support to critics who claim that SNAP should have come down as the unemployment rate has declined . But that is not what the research shows . Hoynes and Bitler found that ' [ T ] he safety net programs receiving the most attention through the Great Recession ( Food Stamps and UI ) exhibit adjustments very consistent with their behavior during previous historical cycles . ' ”
That research is vital for deflating claims of an expanding culture of dependency — and thus for holding the line against deeper cuts to SNAP . But it 's the long-term impacts research that holds the promise of informing a proactive , pro-safety net economic populism that can do more than just respond reactively to the Tea Party . And , indeed , CBPP 's president , Robert Greenstein , cited that research in his testimony to the Senate Budget Committee in February this year . Her research has gotten more attention in the last six months or so than it ever has before , Hoynes said — but if it 's to have the kind of impact that it deserves , this should only be the beginning .
What Hoynes and progressives interested in building on her work are up against is almost 20 years in which empirical data has been relentlessly marginalized . In 1995 , in his first year as speaker , Newt Gingrich dismantled the Office of Technology Assessment ( which had repeatedly dissed Reagan 's “ Star Wars ” missile defense ) , and imposed other internal changes — such as defunding House committee staff — which radically undermined the role of sound information in shaping the nation 's laws . As conservative iconoclast Bruce Bartlett put it , “ Gingrich did everything in his power to dismantle Congressional institutions that employed people with the knowledge , training and experience to know a harebrained idea when they saw it. ” Although Gingrich quickly burned out as speaker , the fact-free culture he promoted has only grown more virulent since then .
While all this was going on in Washington , Hoynes was producing a body of work about the safety net that no longer seemed to matter to those calling the shots in Congress . “ My work , coming from the background and typical approaches of economics , had mostly focused on how ... different kinds of programs [ welfare versus the earned income tax credit , food stamps vs. cash welfare ] lead to differences in employment decisions , poverty outcomes , family structure decisions , how it influences the propensity for kids to be living with 2-parent vs. 1-parent families , you know , these kinds of questions. ” In short , Hoynes was empirically studying the very sorts of outcomes that self-absorbed politicians were busily pontificating about .
About five years ago , Hoynes said , her interests began to shift toward “ calculating the benefits of programs , rather than spending a lot of time talking about the costs of programs . ”
“ I got interested in thinking about how we could measure how these programs affect well-being of children in the households , or the households more broadly , ” Hoynes said . “ It came from a broader interest in evaluating potential benefits of the safety net , which … had sort of never been thought about before — the sort of cream on the top , if you will. ” It was n't just a new direction for her , she noted , “ There really was n't a whole lot of work on this . ”
There was one exception , however : the child health impacts of Medicaid expansion , covering families higher up the income distribution . Of course it makes sense that expanding health insurance would impact children 's health ; that 's the whole point . But Hoynes took things beyond the obvious . “ I sort of thought , 'Well , here are these measures of health and well-being , can we demonstrate that a more cash-based safety net , general redistribution [ program ] can be quantified in terms of effects on health outcomes ? ' So that 's sort of where I was coming from . ”
Her research agenda has focused on “ the two programs that are the most important programs for low-income families and that is food stamps/SNAP and the earned income tax credit , ” she explained . Her first projects looked at impacts on “ a very common robust important measure of child health , which is their weight at birth . ”
This is where she first used the county-by-county rollout approach . “ When food stamps come into your county , we can use the full census of births in America , ” she said , “ comparing women across counties from one year to the next , using the full census of births from the birth certificate data ; we can then look at the weigh of children at birth , their propensity to be a low-birth weight birth and how this varies when food stamps is available versus not. ” This is the short-term food stamp research referred to above . She and her co-authors found a statistically significant reduction in the risk of low birth weight , which tended to concentrate in high poverty counties .
Her paper on the earned income tax credit used a conceptually similar approach , but instead of using a county-by-county rollout structure for the “ natural experiment ” design , she used changes in the tax law , which changed the incentives involved during the 1990s “ as we reformed welfare and moved away from AFDC/TANF and toward the EITC , as a main way to provide cash assistance to low-income families . ”
This is not how Washington understands welfare reform , of course . The decline of AFDC/TANF funding and the expansion of the EITC somehow live in completely separate boxes , and the “ success ” of welfare reform — primarily defined as the reduced number of recipients — has nothing to do with expansion of the EITC , which has helped keep so many millions afloat . But what about the real world ? How did expanding EITC compare to the rollout of food stamps more than a generation earlier ? “ Amazingly , we found very similar results , ” Hoynes said . “ If you provide more assistance through the tax system , using this good variation across a different kind of natural experiment , as it were , we found reductions in low birth rates , more so for families that you would expect to be affected by the EITC , you know , lower education levels , single woman versus married .
“ I would say it 's a very fertile area right now , that people are interested in trying to quantify these longer-term effects . And now , decades have passed , since that time period and the populations that are affected by them are sufficiently mature that we can really dive in and ask some questions that we had n't be able to do before . ”
With all that data out there , and researchers like Hoynes starting to make sense of it , one has to ask if it is n't time for a reality-based political movement to start using what they 're learned to shape a better future .
It might seem like a pipe dream now . But it was actually more or less like that before Gingrich “ reformed ” the House . As late as 1992 , authors Fay Lomax Cook and Edith J. Barrett found strong support for the welfare state and its programs , despite negative views of welfare in their highly detailed survey , Support for the American Welfare State : The Views of Congress and the Public . One key factor in Congress was that Republicans in committee leadership positions , who were much more familiar with how programs worked , showed significantly more support than Republicans as a whole . That was how things were before Gingrich went to work . It 's a good indication of what Speaker Pelosi should have undone when she held power from 2007 to 2011 . The next time Democrats do gain control of the House , they will need to prioritize making it friendly to the likes of Hilary Hoynes and her reality-based colleagues . It 's the only way , ultimately , to make it friendly to all the rest of us as well .
|
Hilary Hoynes is a University of California at Berkeley economist who wrote a particularly notable paper last year. Instead of increasing dependency, as conservative critics have repeatedly claimed, Hoyen's paper showed that, for women at least, food stamp use during pregnancy and early childhood has exactly the opposite impact of what conservatives allege: It actually increases economic self-sufficiency when children grow up, in the next generation.
That was just one of two main results reported in “Long Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net,” which Hoynes co-authored with Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach and Douglas Almond. As stated in the paper's abstract, access to food stamps for women leads to "increases in economic self-sufficiency (increases in educational attainment, earnings, and income, and decreases in welfare participation).” Hoynes and her colleagues took advantage of the fact that food stamp programs were established county-by-county over a period of years, creating a sort of “natural experiment” beginning half a century in the past.
Advertisement:
“Hoynes’ work has been timely, innovative and revealing,” said Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which has highlighted Hoynes' work this year as food stamps and the SNAP program have become a major subject of controversy. “Hoynes and her collaborators have really broadened our understanding of how programs like food stamps not only relieve hardship in the moment but can trigger long-lasting gains in participating children’s later health and education. The implications of the research are considerable. In this long view, such assistance is not only helping struggling families to scrape by, it’s a good investment in the next generation of citizens and workers.”
Hoynes herself said, “This work indicates that there are important benefits of the safety net that to date have been ignored. They predict that a more generous safety net can reduce health disparities. More generally, the emerging evidence points to an important role for investments in early life -- and those investments generate important returns in terms of better health and economic outcomes in adulthood.”
It's a startling result in light of the onslaught of conservative claims to the contrary, but it's somewhat less startling — though still quite illuminating — in light of what's actually known about the impacts of hunger on childhood development back in the “reality based community,” where population-based studies of hunger impacts date back to the 1970s, when researchers first began reporting on the long-term, adult impacts on children born during and shortly after the so-called Dutch “Hunger Winter,” a period from November 1944 through May 1945, when a large part of the Netherlands was subjected to drastically reduced rations under Nazi occupation.
Advertisement:
But to really appreciate the significance of this research, one must also appreciate two other aspects of Hoynes' recent research, which combine to provide a three-pronged counterattack on the right's “culture of dependency” narrative. First, she has done previous research establishing short-term benefits — not just for food stamps, but also the for the earned income tax credit — specifically, a reduction in low-birthweight babies, a significant indicator of well-being. This research alone is sufficient to show that safety net programs are achieving the goals of bettering people's lives, adding more weight to the already well-established statistics on poverty reduction. Second, she has done research into safety net program utilization over the course of economic recession and recovery, research that shows that the current levels of food stamp and other program use are in line with past history, and not a sign of any alleged “explosion” in a “culture of dependency” under Obama, as the right-wing noise machine would have it.
Thus, Hoynes' work provides powerful evidence for a three-pronged counterattack against this conservative narrative, which has come to play a dominant role in Republican politics in the post-Bush/Obama/Tea Party era: 1) The safety net works in the short term, producing measurable improvements in newborn health; 2) it works in the long term, improving health for both men and women, and reducing dependency among women in the next generation; and 3) it works currently in much the same manner as it has worked in the past. The long-term effects findings are clearly the most remarkable, which is why they're worth looking into more closely. But it's the overall combination of evidence — along with the work of others working on other aspects of the safety net — that provides a robust picture of what the real-world safety net actually does to build better lives, pushing back against the onslaught of right-wing lies.
In July, for example, when House Republicans were first threatening massive food stamp cuts, the CBPP released a report, “SNAP Enrollment Remains High Because the Job Market Remains Weak.” It's common sense, of course. As the report stated in its very first sentence, “The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the food stamp program) historically has been the most responsive federal program after unemployment insurance in assisting families and communities during economic downturns,” so it stands to reason that our notoriously bad job market would keep tens of millions of people on food stamps. CBPP began its analysis by citing Congressional Budget Office projections that “as the labor market recovers, SNAP costs will decline markedly. CBO projects that by 2019, SNAP costs will fall all of the way back to their mid-1990s level, measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP).”
Advertisement:
But as CBPP continued, they supplemented CBO data with the more detailed research that Hoynes took part in: “In a new piece of research, economists Hilary Hoynes and Marianne Bitler examine the relationship between poverty and fluctuations in economic activity since 1980 and the historical responsiveness of SNAP, UI [unemployment insurance], and other safety net programs over the business cycle. If SNAP had increased more in proportion to the unemployment rate over the past few years than it has historically, that would provide support to critics who claim that SNAP should have come down as the unemployment rate has declined. But that is not what the research shows. Hoynes and Bitler found that '[T]he safety net programs receiving the most attention through the Great Recession (Food Stamps and UI) exhibit adjustments very consistent with their behavior during previous historical cycles.'”
That research is vital for deflating claims of an expanding culture of dependency — and thus for holding the line against deeper cuts to SNAP. But it's the long-term impacts research that holds the promise of informing a proactive, pro-safety net economic populism that can do more than just respond reactively to the Tea Party. And, indeed, CBPP's president, Robert Greenstein, cited that research in his testimony to the Senate Budget Committee in February this year. Her research has gotten more attention in the last six months or so than it ever has before, Hoynes said — but if it's to have the kind of impact that it deserves, this should only be the beginning.
Advertisement:
What Hoynes and progressives interested in building on her work are up against is almost 20 years in which empirical data has been relentlessly marginalized. In 1995, in his first year as speaker, Newt Gingrich dismantled the Office of Technology Assessment (which had repeatedly dissed Reagan's “Star Wars” missile defense), and imposed other internal changes — such as defunding House committee staff — which radically undermined the role of sound information in shaping the nation's laws. As conservative iconoclast Bruce Bartlett put it, “Gingrich did everything in his power to dismantle Congressional institutions that employed people with the knowledge, training and experience to know a harebrained idea when they saw it.” Although Gingrich quickly burned out as speaker, the fact-free culture he promoted has only grown more virulent since then.
While all this was going on in Washington, Hoynes was producing a body of work about the safety net that no longer seemed to matter to those calling the shots in Congress. “My work, coming from the background and typical approaches of economics, had mostly focused on how ... different kinds of programs [welfare versus the earned income tax credit, food stamps vs. cash welfare] lead to differences in employment decisions, poverty outcomes, family structure decisions, how it influences the propensity for kids to be living with 2-parent vs. 1-parent families, you know, these kinds of questions.” In short, Hoynes was empirically studying the very sorts of outcomes that self-absorbed politicians were busily pontificating about.
About five years ago, Hoynes said, her interests began to shift toward “calculating the benefits of programs, rather than spending a lot of time talking about the costs of programs.”
Advertisement:
“I got interested in thinking about how we could measure how these programs affect well-being of children in the households, or the households more broadly,” Hoynes said. “It came from a broader interest in evaluating potential benefits of the safety net, which … had sort of never been thought about before — the sort of cream on the top, if you will.” It wasn't just a new direction for her, she noted, “There really wasn't a whole lot of work on this.”
There was one exception, however: the child health impacts of Medicaid expansion, covering families higher up the income distribution. Of course it makes sense that expanding health insurance would impact children's health; that's the whole point. But Hoynes took things beyond the obvious. “I sort of thought, 'Well, here are these measures of health and well-being, can we demonstrate that a more cash-based safety net, general redistribution [program] can be quantified in terms of effects on health outcomes?' So that's sort of where I was coming from.”
Her research agenda has focused on “the two programs that are the most important programs for low-income families and that is food stamps/SNAP and the earned income tax credit,” she explained. Her first projects looked at impacts on “a very common robust important measure of child health, which is their weight at birth.”
Advertisement:
This is where she first used the county-by-county rollout approach. “When food stamps come into your county, we can use the full census of births in America,” she said, “comparing women across counties from one year to the next, using the full census of births from the birth certificate data; we can then look at the weigh of children at birth, their propensity to be a low-birth weight birth and how this varies when food stamps is available versus not.” This is the short-term food stamp research referred to above. She and her co-authors found a statistically significant reduction in the risk of low birth weight, which tended to concentrate in high poverty counties.
Her paper on the earned income tax credit used a conceptually similar approach, but instead of using a county-by-county rollout structure for the “natural experiment” design, she used changes in the tax law, which changed the incentives involved during the 1990s “as we reformed welfare and moved away from AFDC/TANF and toward the EITC, as a main way to provide cash assistance to low-income families.”
This is not how Washington understands welfare reform, of course. The decline of AFDC/TANF funding and the expansion of the EITC somehow live in completely separate boxes, and the “success” of welfare reform — primarily defined as the reduced number of recipients — has nothing to do with expansion of the EITC, which has helped keep so many millions afloat. But what about the real world? How did expanding EITC compare to the rollout of food stamps more than a generation earlier? “Amazingly, we found very similar results,” Hoynes said. “If you provide more assistance through the tax system, using this good variation across a different kind of natural experiment, as it were, we found reductions in low birth rates, more so for families that you would expect to be affected by the EITC, you know, lower education levels, single woman versus married.
“I would say it's a very fertile area right now, that people are interested in trying to quantify these longer-term effects. And now, decades have passed, since that time period and the populations that are affected by them are sufficiently mature that we can really dive in and ask some questions that we hadn't be able to do before.”
Advertisement:
With all that data out there, and researchers like Hoynes starting to make sense of it, one has to ask if it isn't time for a reality-based political movement to start using what they're learned to shape a better future.
It might seem like a pipe dream now. But it was actually more or less like that before Gingrich “reformed” the House. As late as 1992, authors Fay Lomax Cook and Edith J. Barrett found strong support for the welfare state and its programs, despite negative views of welfare in their highly detailed survey, Support for the American Welfare State: The Views of Congress and the Public. One key factor in Congress was that Republicans in committee leadership positions, who were much more familiar with how programs worked, showed significantly more support than Republicans as a whole. That was how things were before Gingrich went to work. It's a good indication of what Speaker Pelosi should have undone when she held power from 2007 to 2011. The next time Democrats do gain control of the House, they will need to prioritize making it friendly to the likes of Hilary Hoynes and her reality-based colleagues. It's the only way, ultimately, to make it friendly to all the rest of us as well.
|
www.salon.com
| 0left
|
hi5g1JP46cCbd1E1
|
education
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/EqualEd/2016/1207/What-might-school-choice-look-like-under-Trump
|
What might school choice look like under Trump?
|
2016-12-07
|
Stacy Teicher Khadaroo
|
Supporters of charter schools , vouchers , and other forms of school choice anticipate a friendlier climate with President-elect Donald Trump ’ s selection of school-choice advocate Betsy DeVos to serve as secretary of Education .
Q : In what ways can the government support school choice ?
Vouchers offer a portion of public education dollars for qualifying students to use at private ( religious and nonreligious ) schools .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are run independently and that fill their seats through a lottery of interested students . About 13 percent are run by for-profit companies , with the remainder run by a wide variety of nonprofits . In exchange for independence , they have to meet requirements set by a charter-authorizing body in their state or local area .
Tax credits , tax deductions , and education savings accounts ( ESAs ) are other ways that states can channel public money to parents for educational expenses .
Voucher programs in 14 states and Washington , D.C. , serve an estimated 175,000 students . At least 6,700 charter schools in 42 states and the District of Columbia enroll an estimated 3 million students . And at least 733,000 students benefit from tax credits , tax deductions , or ESAs .
To put these numbers in perspective , about 50 million students from pre-K to Grade 12 are in public schools and 5.4 million in private schools .
Proponents of vouchers and tax policies that fund private schooling argue that for the types of students they often serve – low-income children , students with disabilities , and students in low-performing schools – it ’ s a good investment to let parents choose a setting they think will best serve their children ’ s needs .
Opponents argue that public dollars should be reserved for public institutions , and in the case of vouchers , some state Constitutions prohibit tax dollars from going to private religious groups .
Charter schools generally have enjoyed some bipartisan support as a way to experiment with educational innovations . But when they grow to the point of drawing away significant funding from school districts , some opponents say they destabilize those districts and cause important educational services to be cut . And if they are not regulated closely enough , the quality of those schools may not be what was promised to families .
Charter school backers , meanwhile , argue that traditional school districts are often bloated with bureaucracy . They also say the presence of charter schools enables families to “ vote with their feet , ” which in turn pressures those districts to demonstrate that they can provide a high-quality education .
“ There ’ s good-faith disagreements about how choice plays out , ” says Frederick Hess , director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington . Letting students choose among district schools or take a course online are easy forms of choice for many people to accept . But “ when you talk about charters and vouchers , it ’ s disruptive , so people have stronger feelings about them , ” he says . Yet that also offers “ a real opportunity to communities , as they work these things through , to build bridges and find common ground . ”
Mr. Trump said during the campaign that he would give states $ 20 billion to support low-income students attending the school of their choice , including a private school . It ’ s highly unlikely that he could get Congress to go along with such an idea , however , since even some Republicans have opposed broad proposals to let the money follow students , particularly to private schools .
But Ms. DeVos , in addition to having the power of the bully pulpit , could potentially use regulatory authority as secretary of Education to support states that want to direct more dollars toward various choice programs .
On the other hand , those who have been trying to build bipartisan support for charter schools worry that Trump ’ s negative comments about African-Americans and Latinos during the campaign could create a backlash and weaken support among progressives , Education Week reports .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
The effectiveness of voucher and charter school programs has long been debated , and pro and con camps both cite studies to back up their points of view . ( See , for instance , this report by the former Friedman Foundation , now EdChoice , “ A Win-Win Solution : The Empirical Evidence on School Choice ” … . and this critique of the report by Christopher Lubienski of the University of Illinois . )
There ’ s no strong consensus that vouchers broadly provide a big boost academically – though some well-regarded studies have pointed to such effects . Nor is there consensus that they harm students or fail to give some academic advantage in various cases .
|
Supporters of charter schools, vouchers, and other forms of school choice anticipate a friendlier climate with President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of school-choice advocate Betsy DeVos to serve as secretary of Education.
Q: In what ways can the government support school choice?
Vouchers offer a portion of public education dollars for qualifying students to use at private (religious and nonreligious) schools.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are run independently and that fill their seats through a lottery of interested students. About 13 percent are run by for-profit companies, with the remainder run by a wide variety of nonprofits. In exchange for independence, they have to meet requirements set by a charter-authorizing body in their state or local area.
Tax credits, tax deductions, and education savings accounts (ESAs) are other ways that states can channel public money to parents for educational expenses.
Q: How widely are these options used?
Voucher programs in 14 states and Washington, D.C., serve an estimated 175,000 students. At least 6,700 charter schools in 42 states and the District of Columbia enroll an estimated 3 million students. And at least 733,000 students benefit from tax credits, tax deductions, or ESAs.
To put these numbers in perspective, about 50 million students from pre-K to Grade 12 are in public schools and 5.4 million in private schools.
Q: Why is there disagreement over school choice?
Proponents of vouchers and tax policies that fund private schooling argue that for the types of students they often serve – low-income children, students with disabilities, and students in low-performing schools – it’s a good investment to let parents choose a setting they think will best serve their children’s needs.
Opponents argue that public dollars should be reserved for public institutions, and in the case of vouchers, some state Constitutions prohibit tax dollars from going to private religious groups.
Charter schools generally have enjoyed some bipartisan support as a way to experiment with educational innovations. But when they grow to the point of drawing away significant funding from school districts, some opponents say they destabilize those districts and cause important educational services to be cut. And if they are not regulated closely enough, the quality of those schools may not be what was promised to families.
Charter school backers, meanwhile, argue that traditional school districts are often bloated with bureaucracy. They also say the presence of charter schools enables families to “vote with their feet,” which in turn pressures those districts to demonstrate that they can provide a high-quality education.
“There’s good-faith disagreements about how choice plays out,” says Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. Letting students choose among district schools or take a course online are easy forms of choice for many people to accept. But “when you talk about charters and vouchers, it’s disruptive, so people have stronger feelings about them,” he says. Yet that also offers “a real opportunity to communities, as they work these things through, to build bridges and find common ground.”
Q: What influence could the Trump administration have?
Mr. Trump said during the campaign that he would give states $20 billion to support low-income students attending the school of their choice, including a private school. It’s highly unlikely that he could get Congress to go along with such an idea, however, since even some Republicans have opposed broad proposals to let the money follow students, particularly to private schools.
But Ms. DeVos, in addition to having the power of the bully pulpit, could potentially use regulatory authority as secretary of Education to support states that want to direct more dollars toward various choice programs.
On the other hand, those who have been trying to build bipartisan support for charter schools worry that Trump’s negative comments about African-Americans and Latinos during the campaign could create a backlash and weaken support among progressives, Education Week reports.
Q: Does school choice improve academic achievement?
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
The effectiveness of voucher and charter school programs has long been debated, and pro and con camps both cite studies to back up their points of view. (See, for instance, this report by the former Friedman Foundation, now EdChoice, “A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice” …. and this critique of the report by Christopher Lubienski of the University of Illinois.)
There’s no strong consensus that vouchers broadly provide a big boost academically – though some well-regarded studies have pointed to such effects. Nor is there consensus that they harm students or fail to give some academic advantage in various cases.
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
Q3SPMEkJfYGfOPkU
|
elections
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/22/650682305/surprisingly-close-texas-senate-race-sparks-testy-debate-for-cruz-orourke
|
Surprisingly Close Texas Senate Race Sparks Testy Debate For Cruz, O'Rourke
|
2018-09-22
|
Rachel Osier Lindley
|
Surprisingly Close Texas Senate Race Sparks Testy Debate For Cruz , O'Rourke
It was more duel than debate Friday night in Dallas as Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Democratic challenger Rep. Beto O'Rourke went after each other from the start . Snappy and heavy on snark , Cruz and O'Rourke held nothing back in the first of three debates .
Friday 's focus was domestic policy , and the candidates sparred on immigration , health care , gun control and even their opinions on professional football players taking a knee during the national anthem .
Cruz painted O'Rourke as part of a revolutionary fringe — placing him to the left of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders . He characterized O'Rourke as a politician `` out of step with the people of Texas '' who wants to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement , take away Texans ' guns and impeach President Trump .
`` We 're seeing nationally , socialists like Bernie Sanders , like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and , indeed , Congressman Beto O'Rourke advocating for those same policies , '' Cruz said .
O'Rourke accused Cruz of caring more about tax cuts for corporations than his constituents , saying he wanted `` to deport each and every single Dreamer '' and accusing him of being an absentee senator who spent more time campaigning in Iowa than working for Texas .
`` In 2016 , he missed half of the votes in the United States Senate , '' O'Rourke said . `` You tell me who can miss half of the days of work and still be rehired for the same job going forward . That 's not what Texans want . ''
The surprisingly competitive Senate race has become one of the most-watched and talked-about contests of the 2018 midterms . Once considered a safe seat for Cruz , recent polls show the candidates running within single digits of each other . Just this week , the Cook Political Report reclassified the race , calling it a toss-up .
That is a big deal in Texas , which has n't elected a Democrat to statewide office since 1994 . And it 's a big deal nationally too : Democrats are likely to retake control of the House in November and , if they can sweep Cruz-O'Rourke and other close races , could wrest control of the Senate from Republicans too .
The vast differences between the two candidates on almost every hot topic were on display , particularly on immigration and border security .
`` When it comes to immigration , we need to do everything humanly possible to secure the border , '' Cruz said . `` That means building the wall . That means technology . That means infrastructure . That means boots on the ground . And we can do that all at the same time that we are celebrating legal immigrants . ''
O'Rourke says the U.S. needed to `` bring people out of the shadows , allow them to get right by law . ''
O'Rourke chided Cruz for supporting legislation that would have allocated billions of dollars to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and called for an earned path to citizenship .
`` The alternative , as Cruz has proposed , is to deport 11 million people from this country , '' O'Rourke said . `` Imagine the cost , imagine the stain on this country for generations moving forward . ''
The crowd watching the debate at Southern Methodist University on Friday was most animated when Cruz and O'Rourke took on guns , police violence and mass shootings .
The Dallas debate comes as the area has grappled both with the shooting of an unarmed black man by a white Dallas police officer and the killing of a Fort Worth police officer who was shot trying to stop a robbery . A few weeks ago , a white former police officer from the Dallas suburbs was convicted of murdering a black teenager .
A question about the shooting of 26-year-old Botham Jean pivoted into Cruz 's chastising O'Rourke for calling for the officer 's firing , using hateful rhetoric and `` turning people against the police . '' He raised the specter of the 2016 ambush killing of five Dallas officers by a troubled Army veteran who was reportedly upset by stories of police brutality .
Cruz said O'Rourke wanted to get rid of the Second Amendment , prompting O'Rourke to say that was n't the case . O'Rourke talked about learning to shoot as a kid but also said it 's time for universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons .
Cruz and O'Rourke will face off again Sept. 30 in Houston and Oct. 16 in San Antonio .
|
Surprisingly Close Texas Senate Race Sparks Testy Debate For Cruz, O'Rourke
Enlarge this image toggle caption Tom Fox/Pool/Getty Images Tom Fox/Pool/Getty Images
It was more duel than debate Friday night in Dallas as Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Democratic challenger Rep. Beto O'Rourke went after each other from the start. Snappy and heavy on snark, Cruz and O'Rourke held nothing back in the first of three debates.
Friday's focus was domestic policy, and the candidates sparred on immigration, health care, gun control and even their opinions on professional football players taking a knee during the national anthem.
Cruz painted O'Rourke as part of a revolutionary fringe — placing him to the left of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders. He characterized O'Rourke as a politician "out of step with the people of Texas" who wants to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, take away Texans' guns and impeach President Trump.
"We're seeing nationally, socialists like Bernie Sanders, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and, indeed, Congressman Beto O'Rourke advocating for those same policies," Cruz said.
O'Rourke accused Cruz of caring more about tax cuts for corporations than his constituents, saying he wanted "to deport each and every single Dreamer" and accusing him of being an absentee senator who spent more time campaigning in Iowa than working for Texas.
"In 2016, he missed half of the votes in the United States Senate," O'Rourke said. "You tell me who can miss half of the days of work and still be rehired for the same job going forward. That's not what Texans want."
The surprisingly competitive Senate race has become one of the most-watched and talked-about contests of the 2018 midterms. Once considered a safe seat for Cruz, recent polls show the candidates running within single digits of each other. Just this week, the Cook Political Report reclassified the race, calling it a toss-up.
That is a big deal in Texas, which hasn't elected a Democrat to statewide office since 1994. And it's a big deal nationally too: Democrats are likely to retake control of the House in November and, if they can sweep Cruz-O'Rourke and other close races, could wrest control of the Senate from Republicans too.
YouTube
Immigration and border security
The vast differences between the two candidates on almost every hot topic were on display, particularly on immigration and border security.
"When it comes to immigration, we need to do everything humanly possible to secure the border," Cruz said. "That means building the wall. That means technology. That means infrastructure. That means boots on the ground. And we can do that all at the same time that we are celebrating legal immigrants."
O'Rourke says the U.S. needed to "bring people out of the shadows, allow them to get right by law."
O'Rourke chided Cruz for supporting legislation that would have allocated billions of dollars to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and called for an earned path to citizenship.
"The alternative, as Cruz has proposed, is to deport 11 million people from this country," O'Rourke said. "Imagine the cost, imagine the stain on this country for generations moving forward."
A Senate candidate gun fight
The crowd watching the debate at Southern Methodist University on Friday was most animated when Cruz and O'Rourke took on guns, police violence and mass shootings.
The Dallas debate comes as the area has grappled both with the shooting of an unarmed black man by a white Dallas police officer and the killing of a Fort Worth police officer who was shot trying to stop a robbery. A few weeks ago, a white former police officer from the Dallas suburbs was convicted of murdering a black teenager.
A question about the shooting of 26-year-old Botham Jean pivoted into Cruz's chastising O'Rourke for calling for the officer's firing, using hateful rhetoric and "turning people against the police." He raised the specter of the 2016 ambush killing of five Dallas officers by a troubled Army veteran who was reportedly upset by stories of police brutality.
Cruz said O'Rourke wanted to get rid of the Second Amendment, prompting O'Rourke to say that wasn't the case. O'Rourke talked about learning to shoot as a kid but also said it's time for universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons.
Cruz and O'Rourke will face off again Sept. 30 in Houston and Oct. 16 in San Antonio.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
SKuQt0MBHfAnBZOI
|
veterans_affairs
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/veteran-disability-payment-triple/2014/11/01/id/604579/
|
60,000 Veterans Get Triple Benefits
|
2014-11-01
|
Matthew Daly
|
Nearly 60,000 veterans were triple dippers last year , drawing a total of $ 3.5 billion in military retirement pay plus veterans and Social Security disability benefits at the same time , congressional auditors report .
The average payment was about $ 59,000 , but about 2,300 veterans , or 4 percent of the total , received concurrent payments of $ 100,000 or more , the Government Accountability Office said .
The highest payment was to a veteran who received $ 208,757 in combined payments in 2013 .
Some lawmakers say the report shows the need for better coordination among government programs that are facing severe financial constraints . The Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund could run out of money in as soon as two years , government officials say .
`` We should fulfill our promises to the men and women who serve , but we need to streamline these duplicative programs , '' said Sen. Tom Coburn , R-Okla. , who requested the study .
Veterans groups disagree . They say the retirement money was earned for years of service in the military , while disability payments are compensation for service-related injuries and wounds .
In most cases , veterans who receive a combination of benefits are severely disabled . About 4 in 5 veterans who got triple payments had a disability rating of at least 50 percent , the GAO said . Nearly half of those receiving triple payments were at least 60 percent .
Louis Celli Jr. , a Washington representative for the American Legion , said critics of the multiple benefits are `` misguided and uninformed . '' He said the report `` should simply be filed in the category of one of Sen. Coburn 's parting shots to loyal upstanding American patriots who have sacrificed so much for this country . ''
Coburn , a longtime critic of government spending , is retiring at the end of the year . He said in an interview that the report raises legitimate questions about whether disability benefits are getting to those who truly need them .
`` This is billions of dollars a year in duplicative payments , '' Coburn said . `` We ought to reassess and say , 'Are we doing more than take care of people in need ? ' I 'm not against the military . I do n't think they should be triple dipping . ''
Most Americans would find it hard to understand how someone making $ 86,000 a year in tax-exempt VA income qualifies for Social Security Disability Insurance , when civilian workers are disqualified from the program if they make as little as $ 13,000 a year , Coburn said .
Only 17 percent of those who received multiple forms of compensation had suffered a combat-related disability , according to the GAO .
Veterans have long been exempted from rules that deny Social Security benefits to anyone with other income exceeding $ 13,000 a year .
But until the Sept. 11 , 2001 , terrorist attacks , veterans were barred from receiving both military retirement pay and Department of Veterans Affairs ' disability benefits . Under a Civil War-era statute , the Pentagon docked retirement pay dollar-for-dollar up to the amount of disability benefits from the VA .
With bipartisan support , Congress changed that law in 2002 , gradually restoring military retirement pay to veterans also drawing disability benefits from the VA .
`` Our nation 's status as the world 's only superpower is largely due to the sacrifices our veterans made in the last century , '' Sen. Harry Reid , D-Nev. , said in March 2002 when the bill was being debated .
`` Rather than honoring their commitment and bravery by fulfilling our obligations , the federal government has chosen to perpetuate this longstanding injustice , '' Reid said . `` Quite simply , this is disgraceful and we must correct it . ''
At the time , then-Sen. John Warner , R-Va. , a former Navy secretary , posed a question to fellow senators : `` How can we ask the men and women who have so faithfully served to sacrifice a portion of their retirement because they are also receiving compensation for an injury suffered while serving their country ? ''
Warner acknowledged that the change would have `` significant cost , '' but added ; `` Is the cost too high ? I think not . ''
About 3 percent of the nation 's 1.9 million military retirees collect all three benefits , the GAO said .
The report did not recommend changes to the program . The VA said in a response that it `` generally agrees '' with the report 's conclusions . Social Security officials did not comment .
|
Nearly 60,000 veterans were triple dippers last year, drawing a total of $3.5 billion in military retirement pay plus veterans and Social Security disability benefits at the same time, congressional auditors report.
It's all legal.
The average payment was about $59,000, but about 2,300 veterans, or 4 percent of the total, received concurrent payments of $100,000 or more, the Government Accountability Office said.
The highest payment was to a veteran who received $208,757 in combined payments in 2013.
Some lawmakers say the report shows the need for better coordination among government programs that are facing severe financial constraints. The Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund could run out of money in as soon as two years, government officials say.
"We should fulfill our promises to the men and women who serve, but we need to streamline these duplicative programs," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who requested the study.
Veterans groups disagree. They say the retirement money was earned for years of service in the military, while disability payments are compensation for service-related injuries and wounds.
In most cases, veterans who receive a combination of benefits are severely disabled. About 4 in 5 veterans who got triple payments had a disability rating of at least 50 percent, the GAO said. Nearly half of those receiving triple payments were at least 60 percent.
Louis Celli Jr., a Washington representative for the American Legion, said critics of the multiple benefits are "misguided and uninformed." He said the report "should simply be filed in the category of one of Sen. Coburn's parting shots to loyal upstanding American patriots who have sacrificed so much for this country."
Coburn, a longtime critic of government spending, is retiring at the end of the year. He said in an interview that the report raises legitimate questions about whether disability benefits are getting to those who truly need them.
"This is billions of dollars a year in duplicative payments," Coburn said. "We ought to reassess and say, 'Are we doing more than take care of people in need?' I'm not against the military. I don't think they should be triple dipping."
Most Americans would find it hard to understand how someone making $86,000 a year in tax-exempt VA income qualifies for Social Security Disability Insurance, when civilian workers are disqualified from the program if they make as little as $13,000 a year, Coburn said.
Only 17 percent of those who received multiple forms of compensation had suffered a combat-related disability, according to the GAO.
Veterans have long been exempted from rules that deny Social Security benefits to anyone with other income exceeding $13,000 a year.
But until the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, veterans were barred from receiving both military retirement pay and Department of Veterans Affairs' disability benefits. Under a Civil War-era statute, the Pentagon docked retirement pay dollar-for-dollar up to the amount of disability benefits from the VA.
With bipartisan support, Congress changed that law in 2002, gradually restoring military retirement pay to veterans also drawing disability benefits from the VA.
"Our nation's status as the world's only superpower is largely due to the sacrifices our veterans made in the last century," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in March 2002 when the bill was being debated.
"Rather than honoring their commitment and bravery by fulfilling our obligations, the federal government has chosen to perpetuate this longstanding injustice," Reid said. "Quite simply, this is disgraceful and we must correct it."
At the time, then-Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a former Navy secretary, posed a question to fellow senators: "How can we ask the men and women who have so faithfully served to sacrifice a portion of their retirement because they are also receiving compensation for an injury suffered while serving their country?"
Warner acknowledged that the change would have "significant cost," but added; "Is the cost too high? I think not."
About 3 percent of the nation's 1.9 million military retirees collect all three benefits, the GAO said.
The report did not recommend changes to the program. The VA said in a response that it "generally agrees" with the report's conclusions. Social Security officials did not comment.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
4hjK9UwoNaFMQO8S
|
politics
|
Damon Linker
| 00
|
http://theweek.com/articles/588466/why-arent-conservative-intellectuals-disgusted-gop
|
OPINION: Why aren't conservative intellectuals disgusted with the GOP?
|
2015-11-13
|
Joel Mathis, Matthew Walther, Kathryn Krawczyk
|
Partisan liberals might consider it an oxymoron , but there is such a thing as a conservative intellectual . Indeed , I used to be one .
Though I 've moved away from the right since those days , I maintain many friendships with highly educated , impressively smart conservatives . Their number is many , their intellects mighty . This column is directed at them , because there 's something I genuinely do n't understand .
I ca n't grasp how an intelligent , well-read man or woman , regardless of ideological commitments , could watch the Republican debate in Milwaukee on Tuesday night and not come away disgusted . I certainly did . It was a familiar feeling .
I began to experience it regularly in the run-up to the Iraq War . That disgust propelled my leftward migration over the following years , and it 's intensified since the rise of the populist insurgency known as the Tea Party .
Somehow , my friends on the right do n't seem to hear anything troubling , anything intellectually offensive emanating from the mouths of the Republican candidates . And I just do n't get it .
I do n't just mean the obvious stuff . You know , the unprovoked and petty anti-intellectualism of Marco Rubio denigrating philosophers by contrasting them unfavorably to welders ( and presumably people who work at other skilled trades as well ) . Or Rand Paul 's nonsensical , conspiratorial musings about the Federal Reserve . Or Donald Trump 's xenophobic promises to build a 2,000-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexican border and round up and deport eleven million undocumented immigrants . ( If they 're undocumented , how will we find them ? House to house sweeps by armed agents of the state through poor and heavily Latino neighborhoods ? That 's either absurdly unfeasible , as Jeb Bush and John Kasich pointed out , or a program for American fascism . )
And neither do I merely mean the dumpsters full of dubious assertions that are by now so deeply embedded in conservative ideology that every candidate tosses them out without making even the most cursory effort to bolster them with facts . Like the claim that America 's relatively slow growth rate in recent years is a product of our tax burden ( when in fact tax rates were considerably higher during the high-growth decades following World War II ) . Or the related contention that taxes can be drastically cut without massively increasing the budget deficit because the cuts will spur such enormous growth that tax revenues will actually increase . Or the endlessly repeated alliterative vow that ObamaCare will be `` repealed and replaced , '' while neglecting to admit , let alone defend , the fact that the replacements favored by the GOP candidates would almost certainly leave millions of those currently covered by the Affordable Care Act without insurance .
Actually , that 's more than enough to leave me pretty disgusted .
And yet , at Tuesday 's debate , there were so many other things that got me going more than usual . I 'm talking about specific policy proposals that amounted to nothing more than transparent nonsense . Maybe a credulous viewer with no knowledge of history , public policy , economics , or how the government actually works could respond to these proposals with a nod and a cheer . But informed viewers ? Educated men and women of the right ? Conservative intellectuals ? They should know better — and know enough to realize when they 're being sold , or helping to sell , a bucket of BS .
The appropriate response to someone attempting to turn you into the victim of a hoax or a swindle is anger . It 's insulting to be treated like a sucker , a chump . And yet , my conservative intellectual friends appear not to be bothered in the least .
Here are three concrete examples from Tuesday 's debate of Republican candidates doing their best PT Barnum imitation .
1 . More than once in the debate , Carly Fiorina proposed reducing the federal tax code — not the forms ordinary citizens use to file their taxes , but the body of laws that govern taxation in the United States — to three pages . From its current length of more than 74,000 pages . ( The actual code amounts to something closer to 3,000 pages , with the rest taken up by supporting material , but let 's leave that aside . )
Now , could the tax code be shortened and simplified ? I 'm sure it could be ! Maybe we could go back to its length in 1984 ( 26,300 pages ) . Or even to its size at the end of World War II ( 8,200 pages ) , when the population stood at 140 million people and the economy was many times smaller and vastly less complex than it is now . But no : Fiorina wants us to believe the code can be shrunk to three pages . Which is obviously , indisputably , offensively ludicrous . How can conservative intellectuals be anything but outraged by such hucksterism ?
2 . Ted Cruz took the usual supply-side happy-talk about tax cuts producing massive economic benefits to new , unusually concrete levels , claiming that instituting a 10 percent flat personal income tax and a 16 percent value-added tax , and eliminating the payroll tax , the `` death tax , '' the corporate income tax , and the IRS , and the departments of Commerce , Energy , and Housing and Urban Development , would lead `` every income group '' to `` see double-digit increases…of at least 14 percent . ''
Fourteen percent increases in what ? Cruz provided an example that indicated he meant a 14 percent increase in income : `` So if you 're a single mom , if you 're making $ 40,000 a year , what that means is an extra about $ 5,000 in your pocket… '' ( A 14 percent raise on $ 40,000 in income amounts to an additional $ 5,600 a year . )
The evidence for this assertion can be found in a report prepared by the Tax Foundation , a Washington think tank that , among other things , scores the tax plans of Republican presidential candidates . In the report , readers will find the claim that `` the economic growth that the plan would produce '' through `` increased incentives to work and invest , '' as well as from `` a significant reduction in the service price of capital , '' would lead every income level ( including that of a single mom earning $ 40,000 a year ) to enjoy an increase in after-tax income of `` at least 14.2 percent over the long term , '' with the `` long term '' defined as `` over the next 10 years . '' ( The top one percent , incidentally , would enjoy a 34.2 percent income boost in that same time period . )
Meaning : If you make a series of highly questionable supply-side assumptions and extrapolate out for 10 years from the first year of a Cruz administration in which Congress passes his radical tax plan in every particular , a single mom currently earning $ 40,000 in after-tax income will be earning $ 45,600 round about 2027 .
3 . Then there 's foreign policy — a subject on which every single candidate aside from Rand Paul endorses what journalist Matthew Yglesias once aptly described as The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics , which amounts to the view that , like the second-tier superhero , the United States can accomplish anything it wishes in the world , provided it displays sufficient willpower .
Do n't like Putin 's annexation of Ukraine and meddling in Syria ? Fiorina can face him down . Pissed off about China 's muscle-flexing in the South China Sea ? Trump will show them who 's boss . Dying to finally knock ISIS from the Dark Ages back to the Stone Age ? Rubio 's your man . Itching to undo the Iran nuclear deal so we can put the Mullahs in their place ? Cruz will get it done .
All that 's needed is American leadership , and American power , and the will to use them both . Because with the U.S. military , all things are possible .
Since September 11 , conservative reflection on foreign affairs has retreated into magical thinking . Where , I wonder , are Henry Kissinger , George Shultz , Brent Scowcroft , James Baker , Condoleezza Rice , Robert Gates , and the other grown-ups who once ran Republican foreign policy ? What do they think when they hear one presidential candidate after another blather ignorantly about the world , proudly displaying their indifference to history , contempt for diplomacy , and obliviousness to grand strategy ? Why do they remain silent while their party 's would-be leaders talk about the world as if they 're writing tweets for Rush Limbaugh 's radio show instead of aiming to demonstrate that they 're qualified to lead the most powerful nation on the planet ?
Intellectual compromises are sometimes necessary in democratic politics . But selling one 's soul should not be .
The Republican Party 's 2016 presidential candidates have descended into vapid , puerile bleating . Conservative intellectuals are better than this , smarter than this . The time has come for them to speak up and call the GOP field what it is : ignorant , insulting , and dangerous .
|
ADVERTISEMENT
Partisan liberals might consider it an oxymoron, but there is such a thing as a conservative intellectual. Indeed, I used to be one.
Though I've moved away from the right since those days, I maintain many friendships with highly educated, impressively smart conservatives. Their number is many, their intellects mighty. This column is directed at them, because there's something I genuinely don't understand.
I can't grasp how an intelligent, well-read man or woman, regardless of ideological commitments, could watch the Republican debate in Milwaukee on Tuesday night and not come away disgusted. I certainly did. It was a familiar feeling.
I began to experience it regularly in the run-up to the Iraq War. That disgust propelled my leftward migration over the following years, and it's intensified since the rise of the populist insurgency known as the Tea Party.
Somehow, my friends on the right don't seem to hear anything troubling, anything intellectually offensive emanating from the mouths of the Republican candidates. And I just don't get it.
I don't just mean the obvious stuff. You know, the unprovoked and petty anti-intellectualism of Marco Rubio denigrating philosophers by contrasting them unfavorably to welders (and presumably people who work at other skilled trades as well). Or Rand Paul's nonsensical, conspiratorial musings about the Federal Reserve. Or Donald Trump's xenophobic promises to build a 2,000-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexican border and round up and deport eleven million undocumented immigrants. (If they're undocumented, how will we find them? House to house sweeps by armed agents of the state through poor and heavily Latino neighborhoods? That's either absurdly unfeasible, as Jeb Bush and John Kasich pointed out, or a program for American fascism.)
And neither do I merely mean the dumpsters full of dubious assertions that are by now so deeply embedded in conservative ideology that every candidate tosses them out without making even the most cursory effort to bolster them with facts. Like the claim that America's relatively slow growth rate in recent years is a product of our tax burden (when in fact tax rates were considerably higher during the high-growth decades following World War II). Or the related contention that taxes can be drastically cut without massively increasing the budget deficit because the cuts will spur such enormous growth that tax revenues will actually increase. Or the endlessly repeated alliterative vow that ObamaCare will be "repealed and replaced," while neglecting to admit, let alone defend, the fact that the replacements favored by the GOP candidates would almost certainly leave millions of those currently covered by the Affordable Care Act without insurance.
Actually, that's more than enough to leave me pretty disgusted.
And yet, at Tuesday's debate, there were so many other things that got me going more than usual. I'm talking about specific policy proposals that amounted to nothing more than transparent nonsense. Maybe a credulous viewer with no knowledge of history, public policy, economics, or how the government actually works could respond to these proposals with a nod and a cheer. But informed viewers? Educated men and women of the right? Conservative intellectuals? They should know better — and know enough to realize when they're being sold, or helping to sell, a bucket of BS.
The appropriate response to someone attempting to turn you into the victim of a hoax or a swindle is anger. It's insulting to be treated like a sucker, a chump. And yet, my conservative intellectual friends appear not to be bothered in the least.
And that I just don't understand.
Here are three concrete examples from Tuesday's debate of Republican candidates doing their best PT Barnum imitation.
1. More than once in the debate, Carly Fiorina proposed reducing the federal tax code — not the forms ordinary citizens use to file their taxes, but the body of laws that govern taxation in the United States — to three pages. From its current length of more than 74,000 pages. (The actual code amounts to something closer to 3,000 pages, with the rest taken up by supporting material, but let's leave that aside.)
Now, could the tax code be shortened and simplified? I'm sure it could be! Maybe we could go back to its length in 1984 (26,300 pages). Or even to its size at the end of World War II (8,200 pages), when the population stood at 140 million people and the economy was many times smaller and vastly less complex than it is now. But no: Fiorina wants us to believe the code can be shrunk to three pages. Which is obviously, indisputably, offensively ludicrous. How can conservative intellectuals be anything but outraged by such hucksterism?
2. Ted Cruz took the usual supply-side happy-talk about tax cuts producing massive economic benefits to new, unusually concrete levels, claiming that instituting a 10 percent flat personal income tax and a 16 percent value-added tax, and eliminating the payroll tax, the "death tax," the corporate income tax, and the IRS, and the departments of Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development, would lead "every income group" to "see double-digit increases…of at least 14 percent."
Fourteen percent increases in what? Cruz provided an example that indicated he meant a 14 percent increase in income: "So if you're a single mom, if you're making $40,000 a year, what that means is an extra about $5,000 in your pocket…" (A 14 percent raise on $40,000 in income amounts to an additional $5,600 a year.)
The evidence for this assertion can be found in a report prepared by the Tax Foundation, a Washington think tank that, among other things, scores the tax plans of Republican presidential candidates. In the report, readers will find the claim that "the economic growth that the plan would produce" through "increased incentives to work and invest," as well as from "a significant reduction in the service price of capital," would lead every income level (including that of a single mom earning $40,000 a year) to enjoy an increase in after-tax income of "at least 14.2 percent over the long term," with the "long term" defined as "over the next 10 years." (The top one percent, incidentally, would enjoy a 34.2 percent income boost in that same time period.)
Meaning: If you make a series of highly questionable supply-side assumptions and extrapolate out for 10 years from the first year of a Cruz administration in which Congress passes his radical tax plan in every particular, a single mom currently earning $40,000 in after-tax income will be earning $45,600 round about 2027.
That's one uncertain 14 percent pay raise.
3. Then there's foreign policy — a subject on which every single candidate aside from Rand Paul endorses what journalist Matthew Yglesias once aptly described as The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics, which amounts to the view that, like the second-tier superhero, the United States can accomplish anything it wishes in the world, provided it displays sufficient willpower.
Don't like Putin's annexation of Ukraine and meddling in Syria? Fiorina can face him down. Pissed off about China's muscle-flexing in the South China Sea? Trump will show them who's boss. Dying to finally knock ISIS from the Dark Ages back to the Stone Age? Rubio's your man. Itching to undo the Iran nuclear deal so we can put the Mullahs in their place? Cruz will get it done.
All that's needed is American leadership, and American power, and the will to use them both. Because with the U.S. military, all things are possible.
Except, of course, that they aren't.
Since September 11, conservative reflection on foreign affairs has retreated into magical thinking. Where, I wonder, are Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates, and the other grown-ups who once ran Republican foreign policy? What do they think when they hear one presidential candidate after another blather ignorantly about the world, proudly displaying their indifference to history, contempt for diplomacy, and obliviousness to grand strategy? Why do they remain silent while their party's would-be leaders talk about the world as if they're writing tweets for Rush Limbaugh's radio show instead of aiming to demonstrate that they're qualified to lead the most powerful nation on the planet?
Intellectual compromises are sometimes necessary in democratic politics. But selling one's soul should not be.
The Republican Party's 2016 presidential candidates have descended into vapid, puerile bleating. Conservative intellectuals are better than this, smarter than this. The time has come for them to speak up and call the GOP field what it is: ignorant, insulting, and dangerous.
|
www.theweek.com
| 0left
|
Bcs9md85feCcCq79
|
elections
|
Salon
| 00
|
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/24/donald-trumps-collapse-was-caused-by-one-big-factor-hillary-clinton/
|
Donald Trump’s collapse was caused by one big factor: Hillary Clinton
|
2016-10-24
|
Heather Digparton
|
The latest polls are looking good for Hillary Clinton and increasingly so for Democrats further down on the ballot . The ABC tracking poll , which Nate Silver designates as A plus , was released on Sunday , showing Clinton with a 12-point lead over Trump . That 's a bigger lead than in most other polls but the averages across the board have her percentage up by a comfortable margin that seems to be increasing .
Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com has laid out four possible outcomes to the race at this point , with all but one featuring a Clinton win :
A Trump win , including cases where he loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College . A narrow Clinton win , wherein she wins the Electoral College , but wins the popular vote by 3 percentage points or less . ( Or wins the Electoral College and loses the popular vote . ) A Clinton win in the “ Obama zone , ” wherein she wins the popular vote by 4 to 7 percentage points — the margins by which President Obama won the elections in 2012 and 2008 , respectively . Clinton is all but certain to win the Electoral College if she wins the popular vote by this amount . Finally , a Clinton blowout , wherein she wins the popular vote by 8 points or more , which would almost certainly also yield a dominant performance in the Electoral College .
FiveThirtyEight 's model , which averages polls , shows that Clinton has an 85 percent probability of winning and is currently ahead by 6.6 points .
For its part , The New York Times Upshot has a 92 percent probability of a Clinton win and shows see side-by-side comparisons of all the predictions . They all have Clinton with 85 percent or higher . Using its customary metaphor , the Upshot compares the chances of Clinton losing `` to the probability that an NFL kicker misses a 29-yard field goal . '' That indeed happens ( in fact , it happened on Sunday night ) so Democrats should not get complacent .
And for down ballot races ? Well , there always has been a decent possibility that the Democrats would win the Senate if they retain the White House , simply because this is a cycle when Republicans are defending more seats . Still , that outcome is anything but assured , and some analysts are insisting ( without evidence ) that this year will feature lots of ticket splitting ( that is , people who vote for Clinton but also vote for a Republican incumbent senator , for example ) .
Still , this cycle is nothing if not unpredictable , so who knows ?
Democrats had written off the House from the beginning : GOP gerrymandering all over the country makes it nearly impossible for Democrats to win a majority in the House until another round of redistricting after the 2020 census . Still , the possibility , however remote , is starting to be discussed .
I estimate that Democrats must win the national popular vote by 8 % to have any chance at taking control of the House . This large margin is driven by two major factors in equal measure : gerrymandering to pack Democrats into districts , and population patterns which they pack themselves . Therefore the magic number for House Democrats is a Clinton win by 8 % . In national polls Clinton is currently ahead by 5 % ( 7 polls starting on October 10th or later ) , and Obama outperformed his 2012 polls by 3 % , so it ’ s not crazy to imagine . I ’ d give the House Democrats a 1 in 5 chance of making it over this bar . A long shot . . . but not a crazy long shot .
So what 's happening to make this dramatic shift in October ? Clinton had been leading throughout the summer , but on Sept. 26 , the day of the first debate , FiveThirtyEight had Donald Trump with a 51 percent chance of winning . The candidates were tied nationally at 45 percent , and the trend was moving in his favor .
The obvious answer is that Trump blew it when he made a fool of himself in the aftermath of the first debate with his 3 a.m. tweets about the former Miss Universe . Since then he has been accused by a dozen women of groping and assaulting them against their will . That `` Access Hollywood '' tape was a shocker . Most observers see the huge and growing gender gap as a result of all that grossness .
But something else happened as well . For about a month before that first debate the right-wing media and people in or around the Trump campaign had been spreading spurious rumors that Clinton had brain damage or Parkinson 's disease . This was barely covered in the mainstream media , but everyone in the media pays attention to Matt Drudge , who had been relentless with the story , so they were very much aware of such rumors .
When Clinton had her fainting spell at the 9/11 ceremony in New York , the press spent days feigning anger about her failure to keep them properly informed about the details of her doctor 's appointments and diagnosis . ( That 's despite campaign professionals saying they would never inform the press of anything like that , mainly because such illnesses are so common on the trail . )
Unfortunately for Clinton , the combined effect of the right 's relentless smears about some kind of disqualifying terminal illness and the press fulminating for days over her pneumonia advanced the idea that she lacked the `` strength and stamina '' required for the job . Coincidentally or otherwise , this was the very charge that Trump had been making for months . By the time of the first debate in late September Clinton had been off the trail for quite a bit , first recovering from her pneumonia and then doing debate prep , with Trump nipping at her heels .
When she showed up looking very healthy , sharp and aggressive , it changed the narrative overnight . Indeed , her ability to bait him into misbehavior had her dominating that debate from beginning to end , when she hit him with the Alicia Machado story that had him reeling for days afterward .
So it 's true that Trump 's poll numbers have been cratering for a month now , pointing to what may be a catastrophic loss for the Republicans . Much of that happened because of revelations about Trump 's horrifying misogyny and his ongoing inability to behave with any discipline .
But it 's a mistake to discount the huge effect of the debates , well beyond Trump 's predictably ridiculous performance . These were the first occasions since the Benghazi hearings for people to see what Clinton is made of , and it reminded them of the characteristics that make her a formidable leader . When she stood there , face-to-face with Trump , it was clear that one of them was a president . And it was n't him .
|
The latest polls are looking good for Hillary Clinton and increasingly so for Democrats further down on the ballot. The ABC tracking poll, which Nate Silver designates as A plus, was released on Sunday, showing Clinton with a 12-point lead over Trump. That's a bigger lead than in most other polls but the averages across the board have her percentage up by a comfortable margin that seems to be increasing.
Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com has laid out four possible outcomes to the race at this point, with all but one featuring a Clinton win:
Advertisement:
A Trump win, including cases where he loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College. A narrow Clinton win, wherein she wins the Electoral College, but wins the popular vote by 3 percentage points or less. (Or wins the Electoral College and loses the popular vote.) A Clinton win in the “Obama zone,” wherein she wins the popular vote by 4 to 7 percentage points — the margins by which President Obama won the elections in 2012 and 2008, respectively. Clinton is all but certain to win the Electoral College if she wins the popular vote by this amount. Finally, a Clinton blowout, wherein she wins the popular vote by 8 points or more, which would almost certainly also yield a dominant performance in the Electoral College.
FiveThirtyEight's model, which averages polls, shows that Clinton has an 85 percent probability of winning and is currently ahead by 6.6 points.
For its part, The New York Times Upshot has a 92 percent probability of a Clinton win and shows see side-by-side comparisons of all the predictions. They all have Clinton with 85 percent or higher. Using its customary metaphor, the Upshot compares the chances of Clinton losing "to the probability that an NFL kicker misses a 29-yard field goal." That indeed happens (in fact, it happened on Sunday night) so Democrats should not get complacent.
And for down ballot races? Well, there always has been a decent possibility that the Democrats would win the Senate if they retain the White House, simply because this is a cycle when Republicans are defending more seats. Still, that outcome is anything but assured, and some analysts are insisting (without evidence) that this year will feature lots of ticket splitting (that is, people who vote for Clinton but also vote for a Republican incumbent senator, for example).
Still, this cycle is nothing if not unpredictable, so who knows?
Democrats had written off the House from the beginning: GOP gerrymandering all over the country makes it nearly impossible for Democrats to win a majority in the House until another round of redistricting after the 2020 census. Still, the possibility, however remote, is starting to be discussed.
Sam Wang from the Princeton Election Consortium said:
Advertisement:
I estimate that Democrats must win the national popular vote by 8% to have any chance at taking control of the House. This large margin is driven by two major factors in equal measure: gerrymandering to pack Democrats into districts, and population patterns which they pack themselves. Therefore the magic number for House Democrats is a Clinton win by 8%. In national polls Clinton is currently ahead by 5% (7 polls starting on October 10th or later), and Obama outperformed his 2012 polls by 3%, so it’s not crazy to imagine. I’d give the House Democrats a 1 in 5 chance of making it over this bar. A long shot . . . but not a crazy long shot.
So what's happening to make this dramatic shift in October? Clinton had been leading throughout the summer, but on Sept. 26, the day of the first debate, FiveThirtyEight had Donald Trump with a 51 percent chance of winning. The candidates were tied nationally at 45 percent, and the trend was moving in his favor.
The obvious answer is that Trump blew it when he made a fool of himself in the aftermath of the first debate with his 3 a.m. tweets about the former Miss Universe. Since then he has been accused by a dozen women of groping and assaulting them against their will. That "Access Hollywood" tape was a shocker. Most observers see the huge and growing gender gap as a result of all that grossness.
Advertisement:
But something else happened as well. For about a month before that first debate the right-wing media and people in or around the Trump campaign had been spreading spurious rumors that Clinton had brain damage or Parkinson's disease. This was barely covered in the mainstream media, but everyone in the media pays attention to Matt Drudge, who had been relentless with the story, so they were very much aware of such rumors.
When Clinton had her fainting spell at the 9/11 ceremony in New York, the press spent days feigning anger about her failure to keep them properly informed about the details of her doctor's appointments and diagnosis. (That's despite campaign professionals saying they would never inform the press of anything like that, mainly because such illnesses are so common on the trail.)
Unfortunately for Clinton, the combined effect of the right's relentless smears about some kind of disqualifying terminal illness and the press fulminating for days over her pneumonia advanced the idea that she lacked the "strength and stamina" required for the job. Coincidentally or otherwise, this was the very charge that Trump had been making for months. By the time of the first debate in late September Clinton had been off the trail for quite a bit, first recovering from her pneumonia and then doing debate prep, with Trump nipping at her heels.
Advertisement:
When she showed up looking very healthy, sharp and aggressive, it changed the narrative overnight. Indeed, her ability to bait him into misbehavior had her dominating that debate from beginning to end, when she hit him with the Alicia Machado story that had him reeling for days afterward.
So it's true that Trump's poll numbers have been cratering for a month now, pointing to what may be a catastrophic loss for the Republicans. Much of that happened because of revelations about Trump's horrifying misogyny and his ongoing inability to behave with any discipline.
But it's a mistake to discount the huge effect of the debates, well beyond Trump's predictably ridiculous performance. These were the first occasions since the Benghazi hearings for people to see what Clinton is made of, and it reminded them of the characteristics that make her a formidable leader. When she stood there, face-to-face with Trump, it was clear that one of them was a president. And it wasn't him.
|
www.salon.com
| 0left
|
wOGsnKoAHAZIoPIw
|
impeachment
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2019/0611/After-promising-start-Kamala-Harris-looks-for-ways-to-break-through
|
After promising start, Kamala Harris looks for ways to break through
|
2019-06-11
|
Francine Kiefer
|
“ I think Kamala Harris will compete well . But a lot will depend on whether Democrats think it ’ s less risky to nominate an old white guy instead of a younger woman of color , ” says Dianne Bystrom , a longtime observer of presidential campaigns and women in politics . “ It may come down to that . ”
The California senator ’ s struggles reflect the unwieldy nature of this historically large Democratic field . With 24 hopefuls traipsing around the early voting states and showing up at cattle calls , making an impression – even for the most promising contenders – is proving to be a real challenge . Senator Harris has also been faulted for “ pandering ” to the left and failing to communicate a core message . But for many Democratic voters , it may come down to the bottom line : Who can beat President Donald Trump ?
Kamala Harris connects well in person and on camera . At a campaign swing through California , she hugged , sashayed , and smiled her way through events . Her delivery is crisp and on point . Yet since launching her presidential campaign to great fanfare and an enormous crowd of 20,000 in Oakland , California , in January , she has been stuck in the lower tier of candidates . Recent polls show her support at or below 10 % .
Kamala Harris has always been a trailblazer . As the daughter of immigrant parents – her mother came from India and her father from Jamaica – she was the first woman elected ( twice ) as California ’ s attorney general , and the second African American woman elected to the United States Senate , which she entered two years ago . From the moment she got there , the chattering classes began speculating about White House ambitions .
Those lofty expectations seemed justified when she launched her presidential campaign in Oakland , California , in January , drawing an enormous crowd of about 20,000 people . She ’ s since brought in some big endorsements , including California Gov . Gavin Newsom , and an impressive fundraising haul .
What Senator Harris hasn ’ t been able to do of late is break past 10 % in national polls .
The California senator ’ s struggle to gain momentum reflects the unwieldy nature of this historically large Democratic field . With 24 hopefuls traipsing around the early voting states and giving back-to-back speeches at cattle calls like the recent Democratic Hall of Fame dinner in Iowa and the party convention in California , making an impression – even for the most promising contenders – is proving to be a real challenge .
Senator Harris has also been faulted for “ pandering ” to the left and appearing overly cautious on the trail . In a field with relatively few big policy differences between them , observers say it ’ s vital for candidates to communicate core beliefs and a clear sense of identity . But ultimately , for many Democratic voters , it all may come down to the same bottom line : Who can beat President Donald Trump ?
“ You have to have a message that resonates , ” says Dianne Bystrom , a longtime observer of presidential campaigns and women in politics .
“ She ’ s got great communication skills , ” Dr. Bystrom says of Senator Harris , but “ I don ’ t think she ’ s as specific about her message as [ Massachusetts Sen. ] Elizabeth Warren is. ” She adds that Senator Harris needs to “ further define herself . ”
Of course , it ’ s early yet , and the upcoming debates – the first of which will take place at the end of this month – could offer many second- or third-tier candidates a chance to break out of the pack . Former Vice President Joe Biden is widely regarded as a weak front-runner , and most political observers believe the landscape could shift substantially before Democratic voters start casting ballots early next year .
Jim Messina , former President Barack Obama ’ s campaign manager , famously commented on MSNBC in April that if Senator Harris were a stock , he ’ d “ buy her ” – in other words , seeing a future rise as a good bet .
In Iowa , the latest Des Moines Register/CNN poll has Senator Harris well behind Vice President Biden , as well as behind Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , Senator Warren , and South Bend , Ind. , Mayor Pete Buttigieg . Yet it also found her tied with Senator Warren as the top second choice of Iowa Democrats . Heading into the caucuses , that can be a sign of hidden strength .
Still , being voters ’ second choice is not the same as being their first choice .
Elijah Nouvelage/Reuters Young women react to meeting Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris at a meet-and-greet for women voters in Birmingham , Alabama , June 7 , 2019 .
At the recent California Democratic convention in San Francisco , James Smith , a firefighter from Long Beach , says Senator Harris is “ great ” but “ not for 2020. ” He ’ s standing behind the International Association of Firefighters endorsement of Vice President Biden . “ He ’ s a friend of labor , ” says Mr. Smith . “ Joe ’ s our guy . ”
Alex Núñez , of Mountain View , raves about Senator Harris ’ performance interrogating Attorney General William Barr at a Senate hearing last month , an exchange that went viral on social media . As a former prosecutor , “ she has a unique skill set , ” he says . But he doesn ’ t envision her as president – more like a future attorney general who might someday prosecute President Trump .
“ She ’ s forceful , ” agrees Roberta , a retiree from New York who says she does not want her last name used for fear of becoming the target of a Trump tweet . Coming out of an event for Senator Sanders in Pasadena , California , she says she ’ s a fan of Senator Harris and finds her “ very believable. ” Still , she can ’ t commit to backing her . “ I ’ m in a quandary . I don ’ t know who to vote for . ”
Senator Harris connects well in person and on camera . At a recent campaign swing through California , she hugged , sashayed , and smiled her way through events , continually throwing the praise back at her supporters – whether they were immigrant activists or union members . Her delivery is crisp and on point .
When a man jumped onstage at a MoveOn forum in San Francisco and grabbed the microphone from her , the former district attorney kept her cool , calmly walking away as others – including her husband – hustled the man offstage .
In her stump speeches , she focuses on pocketbook and equality issues , particularly for women and women of color . She proposes a monthly tax credit of $ 500 for families earning less than $ 100,000 a year ; a big boost for teacher salaries ; and equal pay for women – with companies on the hook to prove they comply or else pay a fine .
Yet having detailed policy positions is not the same as having a message , warns Bill Carrick , a Democratic strategist in Los Angeles . “ The message has to be part of who you are , what you stand for , what you believe in , what your values are . ”
Mr. Carrick describes the revolutionary Senator Sanders as a “ classic stand-up-for-the-little-guy , a lefty , with policy underneath it all. ” Similarly , Senator Warren has the “ total package ” – someone who belongs in the hall of fame of policy wonks in her fight against corporations and who is also emotionally driven by this fight .
Former Vice President Biden is another strong persona , “ somebody who can bring us together , get things done , and most importantly , win . ”
When asked about Senator Harris , Mr. Carrick pauses . “ I ’ m not sure what her message actually is . And that ’ s really a challenge . ”
Lately , she has been trying some new approaches . At the California Democratic convention , she leaned much more into an anti-Trump message , built around a series of “ truths ” about President Trump ’ s “ lies ” and calling for the start of impeachment proceedings .
At the Iowa dinner last weekend , she furthered this line of attack – emphasizing her prosecutorial chops and portraying President Trump as having “ defrauded ” the American people when it comes to health care , taxes , and national security .
“ I am prepared to make the case for America and to prosecute the case against Donald Trump , ” the former district attorney said .
The rhetorical shift may be in response to critics who ’ ve been arguing she ought to present herself as a pragmatist . Her main competitor in the race is not Senator Sanders , these critics say , but Vice President Biden . They argue that she made a serious error in pandering to the left , pulled there in part by her sister , Maya Harris , her progressive campaign chairwoman .
Senator Harris has supported liberal causes such as Medicare for All , the Green New Deal , and the decriminalization of sex work , and she has indicated an openness to reparations for slavery , as well as having a “ conversation ” about voting rights for violent felons . In several cases , she ’ s later had to walk back her comments or try to clarify .
It is a pattern similar to her record on some issues in California , when she changed positions on the death penalty and stepped back from her controversial policy to punish parents for their children ’ s truancy , which resulted in a few parents going to jail .
David Axelrod , a former top adviser to President Obama , has criticized Senator Harris for being overly cautious in answering questions – trying to have things both ways . He told the Los Angeles Times that “ she ’ s a brilliant person , ” but “ what we ’ ve learned so far is that she ’ s great at asking questions but timid at answering them . ”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
Senator Harris ’ fans are fervent in their support , and say she is facing strong winds of sexism and racism – a point that Dr. Bystrom , who ’ s now retired from Iowa State University in Ames , also makes . After Hillary Clinton lost to President Trump in the Electoral College , the possibility of losing again is making some Democrats “ very nervous ” about nominating a woman , and a woman of color , Dr. Bystrom believes .
“ I think Kamala Harris will compete well . But a lot will depend on whether Democrats think it ’ s less risky to nominate an old white guy instead of a younger woman of color , ” she says . “ I think it may come down to that . ”
|
“I think Kamala Harris will compete well. But a lot will depend on whether Democrats think it’s less risky to nominate an old white guy instead of a younger woman of color,” says Dianne Bystrom, a longtime observer of presidential campaigns and women in politics. “It may come down to that.”
The California senator’s struggles reflect the unwieldy nature of this historically large Democratic field. With 24 hopefuls traipsing around the early voting states and showing up at cattle calls, making an impression – even for the most promising contenders – is proving to be a real challenge. Senator Harris has also been faulted for “pandering” to the left and failing to communicate a core message. But for many Democratic voters, it may come down to the bottom line: Who can beat President Donald Trump?
Kamala Harris connects well in person and on camera. At a campaign swing through California, she hugged, sashayed, and smiled her way through events. Her delivery is crisp and on point. Yet since launching her presidential campaign to great fanfare and an enormous crowd of 20,000 in Oakland, California, in January, she has been stuck in the lower tier of candidates. Recent polls show her support at or below 10%.
Kamala Harris has always been a trailblazer. As the daughter of immigrant parents – her mother came from India and her father from Jamaica – she was the first woman elected (twice) as California’s attorney general, and the second African American woman elected to the United States Senate, which she entered two years ago. From the moment she got there, the chattering classes began speculating about White House ambitions.
Those lofty expectations seemed justified when she launched her presidential campaign in Oakland, California, in January, drawing an enormous crowd of about 20,000 people. She’s since brought in some big endorsements, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and an impressive fundraising haul.
What Senator Harris hasn’t been able to do of late is break past 10% in national polls.
The California senator’s struggle to gain momentum reflects the unwieldy nature of this historically large Democratic field. With 24 hopefuls traipsing around the early voting states and giving back-to-back speeches at cattle calls like the recent Democratic Hall of Fame dinner in Iowa and the party convention in California, making an impression – even for the most promising contenders – is proving to be a real challenge.
Senator Harris has also been faulted for “pandering” to the left and appearing overly cautious on the trail. In a field with relatively few big policy differences between them, observers say it’s vital for candidates to communicate core beliefs and a clear sense of identity. But ultimately, for many Democratic voters, it all may come down to the same bottom line: Who can beat President Donald Trump?
“You have to have a message that resonates,” says Dianne Bystrom, a longtime observer of presidential campaigns and women in politics.
“She’s got great communication skills,” Dr. Bystrom says of Senator Harris, but “I don’t think she’s as specific about her message as [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren is.” She adds that Senator Harris needs to “further define herself.”
Second, but not first
Of course, it’s early yet, and the upcoming debates – the first of which will take place at the end of this month – could offer many second- or third-tier candidates a chance to break out of the pack. Former Vice President Joe Biden is widely regarded as a weak front-runner, and most political observers believe the landscape could shift substantially before Democratic voters start casting ballots early next year.
Jim Messina, former President Barack Obama’s campaign manager, famously commented on MSNBC in April that if Senator Harris were a stock, he’d “buy her” – in other words, seeing a future rise as a good bet.
In Iowa, the latest Des Moines Register/CNN poll has Senator Harris well behind Vice President Biden, as well as behind Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Senator Warren, and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Yet it also found her tied with Senator Warren as the top second choice of Iowa Democrats. Heading into the caucuses, that can be a sign of hidden strength.
Still, being voters’ second choice is not the same as being their first choice.
Elijah Nouvelage/Reuters Young women react to meeting Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris at a meet-and-greet for women voters in Birmingham, Alabama, June 7, 2019.
At the recent California Democratic convention in San Francisco, James Smith, a firefighter from Long Beach, says Senator Harris is “great” but “not for 2020.” He’s standing behind the International Association of Firefighters endorsement of Vice President Biden. “He’s a friend of labor,” says Mr. Smith. “Joe’s our guy.”
Alex Núñez, of Mountain View, raves about Senator Harris’ performance interrogating Attorney General William Barr at a Senate hearing last month, an exchange that went viral on social media. As a former prosecutor, “she has a unique skill set,” he says. But he doesn’t envision her as president – more like a future attorney general who might someday prosecute President Trump.
“She’s forceful,” agrees Roberta, a retiree from New York who says she does not want her last name used for fear of becoming the target of a Trump tweet. Coming out of an event for Senator Sanders in Pasadena, California, she says she’s a fan of Senator Harris and finds her “very believable.” Still, she can’t commit to backing her. “I’m in a quandary. I don’t know who to vote for.”
Crisp and on point
Senator Harris connects well in person and on camera. At a recent campaign swing through California, she hugged, sashayed, and smiled her way through events, continually throwing the praise back at her supporters – whether they were immigrant activists or union members. Her delivery is crisp and on point.
When a man jumped onstage at a MoveOn forum in San Francisco and grabbed the microphone from her, the former district attorney kept her cool, calmly walking away as others – including her husband – hustled the man offstage.
In her stump speeches, she focuses on pocketbook and equality issues, particularly for women and women of color. She proposes a monthly tax credit of $500 for families earning less than $100,000 a year; a big boost for teacher salaries; and equal pay for women – with companies on the hook to prove they comply or else pay a fine.
Yet having detailed policy positions is not the same as having a message, warns Bill Carrick, a Democratic strategist in Los Angeles. “The message has to be part of who you are, what you stand for, what you believe in, what your values are.”
Mr. Carrick describes the revolutionary Senator Sanders as a “classic stand-up-for-the-little-guy, a lefty, with policy underneath it all.” Similarly, Senator Warren has the “total package” – someone who belongs in the hall of fame of policy wonks in her fight against corporations and who is also emotionally driven by this fight.
Former Vice President Biden is another strong persona, “somebody who can bring us together, get things done, and most importantly, win.”
When asked about Senator Harris, Mr. Carrick pauses. “I’m not sure what her message actually is. And that’s really a challenge.”
Lately, she has been trying some new approaches. At the California Democratic convention, she leaned much more into an anti-Trump message, built around a series of “truths” about President Trump’s “lies” and calling for the start of impeachment proceedings.
At the Iowa dinner last weekend, she furthered this line of attack – emphasizing her prosecutorial chops and portraying President Trump as having “defrauded” the American people when it comes to health care, taxes, and national security.
“I am prepared to make the case for America and to prosecute the case against Donald Trump,” the former district attorney said.
Recalibrating her pitch
The rhetorical shift may be in response to critics who’ve been arguing she ought to present herself as a pragmatist. Her main competitor in the race is not Senator Sanders, these critics say, but Vice President Biden. They argue that she made a serious error in pandering to the left, pulled there in part by her sister, Maya Harris, her progressive campaign chairwoman.
Senator Harris has supported liberal causes such as Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and the decriminalization of sex work, and she has indicated an openness to reparations for slavery, as well as having a “conversation” about voting rights for violent felons. In several cases, she’s later had to walk back her comments or try to clarify.
It is a pattern similar to her record on some issues in California, when she changed positions on the death penalty and stepped back from her controversial policy to punish parents for their children’s truancy, which resulted in a few parents going to jail.
David Axelrod, a former top adviser to President Obama, has criticized Senator Harris for being overly cautious in answering questions – trying to have things both ways. He told the Los Angeles Times that “she’s a brilliant person,” but “what we’ve learned so far is that she’s great at asking questions but timid at answering them.”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
Senator Harris’ fans are fervent in their support, and say she is facing strong winds of sexism and racism – a point that Dr. Bystrom, who’s now retired from Iowa State University in Ames, also makes. After Hillary Clinton lost to President Trump in the Electoral College, the possibility of losing again is making some Democrats “very nervous” about nominating a woman, and a woman of color, Dr. Bystrom believes.
“I think Kamala Harris will compete well. But a lot will depend on whether Democrats think it’s less risky to nominate an old white guy instead of a younger woman of color,” she says. “I think it may come down to that.”
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
N58QkpheBKrtUY1v
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.