ReportWire

Tag: government organizations – us

  • Meta and Twitter decided to restore Trump’s account. Will other platforms follow suit? | CNN Business

    Meta and Twitter decided to restore Trump’s account. Will other platforms follow suit? | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Former president Donald Trump could soon make a return to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, and reach the massive audiences on each, now that the companies behind those platforms have restored access to his accounts.

    But that could just be the start. The decisions by Twitter and now Facebook-parent Meta to bring back Trump could push — or at least provide cover for — a number of other platforms to make similar moves. 

    Facebook and Twitter restricted Trump’s accounts in the aftermath of the January 6 attack. The bans were seen as necessary by tech executives, and indeed many on Capitol Hill, believing Trump could use their platforms to incite further violence.

    Many other platforms followed suit by banning or restricting Trump, including YouTube, Snapchat and game streaming platform Twitch. Shopify, an e-commerce company, removed two stores associated with Trump, and digital payments provider Stripe said it would stop processing payments for Trump’s campaign. In some cases, platforms restricted channels or content that was associated with the then-president, if not directly affiliated — Reddit and Discord, for example, banned pro-Trump groups on their platforms.

    The net effect was that Trump, or at least his accounts, essentially vanished or went silent across the mainstream internet. Trump’s digital exile pushed him to launch his own social media platform, Truth Social. His media company even teased plans to create rivals to other online services, including Stripe. (Trump has not said whether he will resume posting from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram; he is believed to have some form of an exclusivity deal with Truth Social’s parent company to post there.)

    For now, some of these other companies appear to be sticking with their policies. On Wednesday, Snapchat parent Snap indicated that it is not planning to revisit its decision to ban Trump’s account two years ago.

    “In January 2021, Donald Trump’s Snapchat account was terminated for violating our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines,” a Snap spokesperson said in a statement to CNN. “According to our Community Guidelines, if your account is terminated for violating our Terms of Service or the Guidelines, you are not allowed to use Snapchat again.”

    But for other platforms, Meta’s ruling this week could add to the pressure many had already been facing to reconsider their bans after Trump announced he’d seek a third bid for the White House in 2024 and new Twitter owner Elon Musk gave him back his account.

    “Usually these companies do fly in a flock and whoever makes the first movements, other companies do tend to try to, in succession, follow behind because the initial company takes the biggest media hit and then the rest of them don’t suffer the reputational hit of being the first technology company to make a decision,” Joan Donovan, research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, told CNN earlier this month.

    A YouTube spokesperson told CNN Wednesday that the company currently had “nothing to share” on whether the company is or plans to consider reversing its suspension. Shopify, Stripe, Discord and Reddit did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the possibility of following Meta and Twitter’s leads and reversing their bans.

    When Musk announced the decision to reinstate Trump’s Twitter account in November, shortly after completing his acquisition of the company, it came with little explanation beyond Musk’s previously stated desire for freer speech on the platform. Musk conducted an informal poll of his followers and more voted in favor of restoring the account than not.

    Meta’s decision, by contrast, could provide a new set of precedents for platforms on how to handle Trump and other world leaders who violate their rules.

    In announcing its decision on Wednesday, Meta laid out “new guardrails” for how it will handle possible rules violations by Trump if he opts to return to Meta’s platforms. In short: yes, Trump can get suspended again, but a permanent ban no longer appears to be on the table.

    “In the event that Mr. Trump posts further violating content, the content will be removed and he will be suspended for between one month and two years, depending on the severity of the violation,” Clegg said. He added that the new, harsher penalties for repeat violations will also apply to other public figures whose accounts are reinstated following suspensions related to civil unrest.

    For content that doesn’t violate its rules but “contributes to the sort of risk that materialized on January 6th, such as content that delegitimizes an upcoming election or is related to QAnon,” Meta may limit distribution of the posts, Clegg said. The company could, for example, remove the reshare button or keep the posts visible on Trump’s page but not in users’ feeds, even for those who follow him, he said. For repeated instances, the company may restrict access to its advertising tools.

    If Trump again posts content that violates Meta’s rules but the company determines “there is a public interest in knowing that Mr. Trump made the statement that outweighs any potential harm,” Meta may similarly restrict the posts’ distribution but leave them visible on Trump’s page.

    The new policy may still require Meta’s leadership to make significant, subjective decisions about what content is potentially harmful public safety at large, but the rules could act as a model for how other platforms could bring back the former president without appearing reckless.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel elected to fourth consecutive term | CNN Politics

    RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel elected to fourth consecutive term | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Dana Point, California
    CNN
     — 

    Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel was elected to a fourth consecutive term Friday after winning the support of about two-thirds of the RNC members who gathered here for their winter meeting.

    McDaniel fended off a stronger-than-expected challenge from Harmeet Dhillon, an RNC committeewoman from California and an attorney who has represented former President Donald Trump.

    The vote was conducted by secret ballot and McDaniel needed a majority of the members casting ballots to win. After just one round of voting, the parliamentarian announced that McDaniel had received 111 of the 167 votes cast. Dhillon received 51 votes and four ballots were cast for MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, a 2020 election denier and ardent Trump backer.

    Dhillon had argued the party needed to “radically reshape” its leadership amid recriminations about Republicans’ lackluster showing in the midterm elections, which compounded disappointments over the results in the previous two cycles.

    After her win Friday, McDaniel invited Dhillon and Lindell onstage for a photo op, implicitly attempting to rebut criticism about the fractured nature of the party. “With us united and all of us going together, the Democrats are going to hear us in 2024,” McDaniel said.

    But moments later, Dhillon told reporters that GOP leaders would have to reckon with widespread distrust in the party among rank-and-file voters across the country – which she said was reflected in the support she garnered as she challenged McDaniel over the past two months.

    “The results were not what we or hundreds of thousands of supporters around the country were hoping for, and I think the party is going to have to deal with that fallout of being in a disconnect from the grassroots,” Dhillon told reporters outside the RNC’s general session at the Waldorf Astoria Monarch Beach resort.

    “The party is not united, but it’s our job to try and unite the party, and that’s going to mean changes at the RNC,” Dhillon added.

    Both McDaniel and Dhillon have ties to Trump. The former president backed McDaniel when she first ran for party chair in 2017. Dhillon’s law firm represented Trump in his dealings with the House select committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. The RNC paid more than $1 million for the legal work.

    But Trump stayed neutral in the race for RNC chair, stating that McDaniel and Dhillon should “fight it out.” On Friday, he congratulated McDaniel on her “big WIN” in a post on his Truth Social platform.

    Trump’s likely rival in the 2024 contest for the White House, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, weighed in on the race in an interview that posted Thursday, telling Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, a conservative web show host, that it was time for “some new blood in the RNC.” But the GOP governor stopped short of offering a formal endorsement of Dhillon.

    The feud between McDaniel and Dhillon has underscored the fractious nature of the Republican Party at this moment. There are broad disagreements among RNC members about how to steer the party back into a position of strength before the 2024 presidential election, with Trump already an announced candidate. Dhillon, for example, has said the party must do more to encourage early voting to compete with Democrats after years in which Trump has undermined that method of casting ballots in his quest to sow doubt in election results.

    During a speech at the beginning of Friday’s meeting, McDaniel implicitly pushed back at criticisms of her leadership record as she argued that the party must be united headed into 2024. “We’re working overtime to learn the lessons of the midterms – what went right and what went wrong,” she said.

    McDaniel won public commitments from more than 100 RNC members to back her before Friday’s secret ballot election that unfolded among other votes on party business and resolutions. Dhillon’s allies had suggested that many members would switch to the California committeewoman when the secret voting began, but that dynamic did not pan out.

    The race for RNC chair had grown increasingly contentious over the past two months with Dhillon allies raising questions about the compensation and benefits that McDaniel earned as party chair, and McDaniel supporters pointing to the lucrative payments Dhillon’s law group has received for representing both Trump and the RNC. Both women assured members that they would look closely the RNC’s spending on consultants and outside vendors as the party charts the course forward into the next cycle.

    As the GOP wrestles with how much influence Trump should exert over the party’s leadership and machinery, Trump’s candidates for RNC co-chair and treasurer were defeated during the voting on leadership positions by RNC members Friday afternoon in Dana Point, California.

    Trump’s endorsed candidate for RNC co-chair, North Carolina Republican Chairman Michael Whatley, withdrew after trailing South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick, who won after several rounds of voting. Trump had recently endorsed Whatley after crediting him with “leading North Carolina to tremendous success in the recent election” and said he was “MAGA all the way.” Trump’s choice for RNC Treasurer, Joe Gruters – the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida who had backed McDaniel in her run for a fourth consecutive term – also lost on Friday. Vicki Drummond of Alabama was reelected to a term as treasurer.

    RNC members also approved a resolution opposing “all forms of antisemitism, antisemitic statements and any antisemitic elements that seek to infiltrate the Republican Party.” The resolution explicitly condemned White supremacist Nick Fuentes and rapper Kanye West – who have well-publicized antisemitic views and dined with Trump in November at his Mar-a-Lago estate – by name.

    The resolution approved by a voice vote Friday said that the Republican National Committee “formally condemns, denounces, censures and opposes Kanye West, also known as Ye, Nicholas ‘Nick’ Fuentes, Congresswomen Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush and all others promoting their antisemitism beliefs.” It added that the Republican National Committee “affirms antisemitism has no place in our political party, American politics, or any political discourse.”

    Trump acknowledged that the dinner occurred in a post on Truth Social after the controversy erupted, stating that West had unexpectedly showed up with three of his friends “whom I knew nothing about” and described the dinner as “quick and uneventful.”

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A Texas National Guard member shot and injured a migrant at the border | CNN

    A Texas National Guard member shot and injured a migrant at the border | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A Texas National Guard member shot a migrant in the shoulder during an encounter in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas last week, according to a recent joint Army Times and Texas Tribune report. A federal law enforcement source confirmed to CNN a migrant was shot and injured in the incident.

    This is the first known incident involving a service member shooting and injuring a migrant since Texas’ Operation Lone Star started in March 2021, according to the Army Times and Texas Tribune.

    Citing a Texas Military Department internal document, the outlets reported the shooting happened in the early morning of January 15 in an area west of McAllen, Texas, where the Border Patrol tracked a group of migrants to an abandoned house.

    Two Texas National Guard members entered the dwelling, where three of the migrants surrendered and a fourth migrant attempted to flee through a window and resisted when a soldier tried to apprehend him, according to the outlets, citing the internal military department document.

    A struggle ensued, and the Guard member fired once, striking the migrant, the outlets reported, citing the document.

    The migrant who was shot is a man from El Salvador who was wounded in the shoulder and released from the hospital the same day, according to the federal law enforcement source. It is unclear where the migrant is located at this time, the source said.

    The Army Times and Texas Tribune reported the internal document did not indicate whether the migrant was armed, and it was unclear if the Guard member intentionally fired his weapon.

    CNN asked the Texas Military Department for a copy of the incident report, but the information was not provided.

    “Because this is an active and ongoing investigation by the Texas Rangers, no information is available at this time,” the Public Affairs Office of the Texas Military Department stated in an email.

    US Border Patrol agents assigned to the Rio Grande Valley as well as Texas Department of Public Safety personnel were also present during the shooting incident at about 4:12 a.m. CT January 15, according to US Customs and Border Protection spokesperson Rod Kise.

    “Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Professional Responsibility is reviewing the incident,” Kise said in an email.

    CNN asked the Texas Department of Public Safety to confirm its personnel were present during the shooting incident and for comment on the case. Ericka Miller, press secretary for the department, said the Texas Rangers are investigating the incident.

    “As this is an active and ongoing investigation, no additional information is available,” Miller said in an email.

    The Texas Rangers is a division of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

    Operation Lone Star was launched by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in response to a rise in illegal immigration. The state has allocated more than $4 billion dollars to finance the effort, which includes the deployment of thousands of Texas National Guard members and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers to the Texas southern border with Mexico.

    “This latest shooting is the consequence of Greg Abbott playing political games with people’s lives through his Operation Lone Star scheme,” said incoming Texas Civil Rights Project President Rochelle Garza in an email. “The lives of both National Guardsmen and immigrants that are seeking safety have been put in danger through this unlawful policy. We will continue to fight attempts from the state to intervene in federal immigration policy and push for the humane and just solutions that Texas communities and migrants deserve.”

    The Texas Civil Rights Project is a civil rights group of lawyers and advocates in Texas.

    CNN reached out to Abbott’s press office asking for comment and has not heard back.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jan. 6 rioter who assaulted Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick sentenced to over 6 years in jail | CNN Politics

    Jan. 6 rioter who assaulted Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick sentenced to over 6 years in jail | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A man who assaulted United States Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick with pepper spray on January 6, 2021, was sentenced on Friday to 80 months behind bars.

    Julian Khater pleaded guilty in September to two counts of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers with a dangerous weapon. His co-defendant, George Tanios, pleaded guilty last summer to disorderly conduct and entering and remaining in a restricted building. Khater was also ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and $2,000 in restitution.

    Tanios was sentenced to time served and one year of supervised release. He previously spent more than five months behind bars.

    The day after the attack, Sicknick died after suffering several strokes. Washington, DC’s chief medical examiner, Francisco Diaz, determined that the officer died of natural causes and told The Washington Post that the riot and “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”

    Sicknick’s family and partner were present for the sentencing and law enforcement officers dressed in uniform filled the courtroom.

    According to the plea agreements, Tanios bought two cans of bear spray in preparation for his trip with Khater to Washington on January 6. During the Capitol attack, when the two men arrived near a line of police officers by the steps of the Capitol, Khater said to Tanios, “Give me that bear s**t,” according to the plea.

    Khater took a white can of bear spray from Tanios’s backpack, walked up to the line of officers and, as rioters started pulling on the bike rack barrier separating them and the police, Khater sprayed multiple officers – including Sicknick – who had to retreat from the line.

    One of those officers, Caroline Edwards, gave a witness impact statement before DC District Judge Thomas Hogan during the sentencing hearing.

    “I felt like the absolute worst kind of officer, someone who didn’t help – couldn’t help – their friend,” she said of not being able to help Sicknick after being sprayed herself seconds later by Khater. “Sometimes when I close my eyes I can still see his face, white as a sheet.”

    Hogan called Khater’s actions that day “inexcusable,” adding that “three officers (who) were doing their duty … are suddenly sprayed directly in the face.”

    “I’m not going to give a lecture on the riot,” Hogan said, adding that “every time you see the video you’re shocked over again” and that “something has come out of this country that is very, very serious.”

    After recovering from the bear spray attack, Sicknick continued to help protect the Capitol that day, according to court documents, remaining on duty until late into the evening.

    “Just before approximately 10:00 p.m., Officer Sicknick began slurring his speech while talking to fellow officers,” court documents state. “He slumped backwards and lost consciousness, and emergency medical technicians were summoned for assistance. He was transported to the George Washington University Hospital where he remained on life support for nearly 24 hours and was pronounced dead at 8:51 p.m. the following day.”

    President Joe Biden awards the Presidential Citizens Medal to US Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick, whose mother Gladys Sicknick accepts on his behalf.

    Khater’s defense attorney said that Hogan should not sentence his client for the death of Sicknick, which the attorney noted was determined to be of natural causes. The judge agreed, noting he “can’t sentence Mr. Khater (for) causing officer Sicknick’s death.”

    Calling his client “sheepish” and “sweet and gentle,” Khater’s attorney said his actions that day amounted to seconds of “emotionally charged conduct” from a man who suffered from anxiety.

    In his statement to the judge, Khater began by highlighting how long he had already served behind bars and how it had “taken a huge toll” on him. “I wish I could take it all back,” he said. “It’s not who I am.”

    Hogan pressed Khater on why he did not expressly apologize to the officers in the courtroom and Sicknick’s family. “Somewhere along the lines we lost the sense of responsibility,” the judge said.

    “It’s the elephant in the room,” Khater said, adding that “there’s a civil thing going on” – in reference to a civil lawsuit from Sicknick’s estate – and that his lawyer had warned him about what to say in court Friday.

    “You should be afraid,” Hogan said of the lawsuit.

    Sicknick’s partner, Sandra Garza, had asked the judge to impose the maximum sentence for both men.

    “I realize it will not bring back Brian, nor give him peace in his last moments on earth, but it will give some sense of justice in my universe,” Garza wrote to the judge.

    “The only thing that surpasses my anger is my sadness,” Sicknick’s brother, Kenneth, wrote in his statement to the judge. “Sadness that the only time I can communicate with Brian is to speak into the nothingness and hope that he is listening.”

    Kenneth continued, “Brian was never one for the spotlight. He preferred to go about his business, not bringing attention to himself. My family and I quietly smile at each other when we attend an event honoring and remembering Brian and the weather turns bad. We know it’s Brian telling us that it is OK, he is OK, please don’t make a big deal about me, take care of the others that need it. That’s what he would have done.”

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump hits the trail in New Hampshire and South Carolina as he looks to rejuvenate 2024 campaign | CNN Politics

    Trump hits the trail in New Hampshire and South Carolina as he looks to rejuvenate 2024 campaign | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump on Saturday will deliver the keynote address at the New Hampshire Republican Party’s annual meeting as he returns to the trail looking to ramp up his 2024 presidential campaign.

    Trump will address hundreds of Republican leaders and grassroots activists at the meeting in Salem before headlining a second campaign event in South Carolina – also an early voting state – later in the day.

    The pair of events offers Trump an opportunity to reinvigorate his campaign, which has been slow-moving since he announced his candidacy in November. The former president remains the only declared major 2024 candidate, but several Republicans have been either publicly weighing or fueling speculation about potential bids.

    In New Hampshire, Trump is expected to formally announce that outgoing state GOP Chairman Stephen Stepanek will be added to his campaign operation in the Granite State as a senior adviser, a source familiar with the hire told CNN.

    Stepanek co-chaired Trump’s first presidential campaign before becoming the top GOP official in New Hampshire, serving two terms. He joins Trump’s team as the three-time presidential contender looks to repeat his 2016 victory in the first-in-the-nation primary, a task potentially complicated by waning support among state officials who are looking for a fresh face to top their party’s ticket.

    Trump’s decision to tap Stepanek was first reported by Politico.

    Stepanek had previously expressed enthusiasm about the former president’s upcoming address, saying in a statement, “President Trump has long been a strong defender of New Hampshire’s First in the Nation Primary Status and we are excited that he will join us to deliver remarks to our Members.”

    Trump’s visit comes days before the Democratic National Committee is set to meet to vote on a new proposed 2024 presidential primary calendar put forward by President Joe Biden that would strip New Hampshire of it’s first-in-the-nation primary status – a move strongly opposed by New Hampshire Democrats. Republicans have already locked in their early state lineup of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada – the same lineup Democrats previously had.

    New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, seen as a potential contender for the 2024 GOP nomination, has been sharply critical of Trump. He argued in December that Trump is “not the influence he thinks he is” and said that the Republican Party was “moving on” from him.

    After the New Hampshire event, Trump will fly to South Carolina, a state that helped pave his way to becoming the GOP nominee in 2016 and where he is expected to unveil a leadership team and a handful of endorsements. Among the top South Carolina Republicans scheduled to attend the event at the Statehouse in Columbia in support of the former president are Sen. Lindsey Graham, Gov. Henry McMaster and US Rep. Russell Fry, who won a primary last year over a GOP incumbent who had voted to impeach Trump.

    Trump continues to be investigated by the Department of Justice, and special counsel Jack Smith is overseeing the criminal probes into the retention of classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and into parts of the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol. Both investigations implicate the conduct of Trump.

    Trump’s Saturday campaign events come in the wake of recent revelations that classified documents were also found at locations tied to both Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a separate special counsel to take over the investigation into the Obama-era classified documents found at Biden’s home and former private office.

    Earlier this week, Facebook parent company Meta announced it would restore Trump’s accounts on Facebook and Instagram in the coming weeks, just over two years after suspending him in the wake of the January 6 attack.

    This story and headline have been updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion: The rare bipartisan opportunity House Republicans should take advantage of | CNN

    Opinion: The rare bipartisan opportunity House Republicans should take advantage of | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: Patrick T. Brown is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank and advocacy group based in Washington, DC. He is also a former senior policy adviser to Congress’ Joint Economic Committee. Follow him on Twitter. The views expressed in this piece are his own. View more opinion on CNN.



    CNN
     — 

    With only a thin and fractious majority in the House, the GOP is facing two years of struggling to set any kind of positive agenda. But one thing every elected Republican would agree on is the need to scrutinize the Biden administration.

    Courtesy Patrick T. Brown

    Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, the new chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has already been hard at work, firing off letters demanding answers to pointed questions on border photo ops, President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents, presidential visitor logs, remote work among top federal employees and Hunter Biden.

    This is, of course, business as usual. The party that doesn’t control the White House will always seek to score political points on possible bureaucratic scandals. In return, Democrats’ instinctive reaction might be to circle up the wagons and seek to stonewall or downplay as many of these efforts as possible.

    But one area of focus for the Oversight Committee deserves to be taken seriously, not just as a political point-scoring operation, but as an earnest attempt to improve how government works. A genuine bipartisan commitment can and should be made to evaluate the extent of fraud in the pandemic-era safety net measures. A better understanding of where the system failed would not only shine a light on how some funds were misspent but also lay the groundwork for better administration of safety-net benefits, in ways applicable and valuable even outside of the unique circumstances of a global pandemic.

    Recall that as the initial wave of coronavirus cases hit US shores, economists feared we could be headed for an economic meltdown. People stopped going about their daily lives, stay-at-home orders went into effect and businesses responded by laying off workers left and right. The unemployment rate spiked to 14.7% in April 2020, the highest level in the post-World War II era.

    Congress wanted to provide aid as quickly as possible; there simply wasn’t time to sit around and construct the ideal policies. As part of the frenetic response, the federal government used the often-clunky unemployment insurance systems run by states to try to backstop households’ finances.

    Fraud became an issue due to a number of factors, according to a June 2022 report from the Government Accountability Office, including unclear federal guidance, ill-equipped state offices and a relaxation of normal eligibility rules. It didn’t help that 32 states run their unemployment insurance systems on outdated infrastructure, often developed in the 1970s and 1980s, according to that same report. These systems make it difficult for states to have the flexibility and responsiveness necessary to run benefit programs efficiently – even when there isn’t a global pandemic.

    The underlying structure of unemployment insurance may have been an issue as well – the federal government provides support and technical assistance, while states determine eligibility and ensure accurate payments. The jerry-rigged systems in many states couldn’t handle the surge of applicants and a newly created unemployment insurance program relied on self-certification. Without any requirements to prove lost income, the program opened the door to bad actors.

    But some of the headlines about the amount of fraud in pandemic assistance are likely overblown. One widely-repeated claim about the ubiquity of fraud was advanced not by a disinterested party but by a company that sells ID verification systems. The GAO report estimates the amount of unemployment insurance fraud is likely over $60 billion (or about 7% of total $878 billion spent), although the true amount may not be knowable.

    $60 billion sounds like a lot of money, but some could argue the result justified the leaky process. Research by the Brookings Institution found that the expanded unemployment benefits delivered the most aid to lower-income workers, stabilizing the broader economy by keeping consumption stable. At the peak of Covid’s impact, millions of workers every week were applying for unemployment insurance; if excessive concern about fraud had prevented rolling out the federal expansion of benefits, it could have taken a lot longer for the economy to recover.

    But with the worst of the pandemic in the rear-view mirror, cracking down on people who abused the system and making it harder for future scammers to do the same is an appropriate area for the Oversight Committee to focus on. A full, bipartisan Congressional inquiry could spotlight the weaknesses of the current system and where it was taken advantage of in order to lay the groundwork for future efforts to improve the way benefits are disbursed.

    Not doing so would allow distrust around government programs to fester. Some voters who hear stories about fraudsters taking advantage of pandemic-era assistance – especially blatant examples of people who listed their name as “N/A” or claimed that they owned nonexistent farms – may lose faith in government’s ability to function properly. Knowing that the expanded assistance helped the economy does nothing to change or address the fact that some people took advantage of loopholes in the system.

    Some initial steps have been taken to address this lingering concern. The Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, which was created as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act in 2020, has provided publicly available data on how emergency pandemic funds were spent. Last summer, Congress passed bipartisan bills extending the statute of limitations to prosecute individuals who committed fraud through the Paycheck Protection Program or the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program. And Democrats, such as Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, who previously served as the chair of a subcommittee on the coronavirus response, have rightly pointed out that small business aid during the pandemic was also plagued by fraud and improper payments.

    Yet more could be done. A GAO report in October 2021 made six recommendations about how the Department of Labor could stem fraud in unemployment insurance programs, but a recent follow-up found the department had not implemented any of them. The deluge of cases has left investigators overwhelmed, and Congress could beef up funding for the agents that investigate pandemic fraud.

    Last year, the Biden administration announced initial steps to combat fraud and identity theft in pandemic relief, but it hasn’t made a priority of supporting bills like the one introduced in 2021 by Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, which would have modernized the unemployment insurance program. Helping states develop better systems of determining eligibility and automating basic safeguards could make it easier to keep scammers out and make sure the truly deserving get the benefits they need.

    Republicans are right to put the spotlight on those who took advantage of pandemic-era programs. Democrats should join them. Getting benefits into the hands of people who merit them and keeping them out of the hands of people who don’t should be something both parties agree on. Amid all the other controversies that take up political oxygen, a concerted effort to crack down on wrongdoing and improve how our social safety net functions could be a welcome breath of bipartisan air.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Biden makes false and misleading claims in economic speech | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Biden makes false and misleading claims in economic speech | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden delivered a Thursday speech to hail economic progress during his administration and to attack congressional Republicans for their proposals on the economy and the social safety net.

    Some of Biden’s claims in the speech were false, misleading or lacking critical context, though others were correct. Here’s a breakdown of the 14 claims CNN fact-checked.

    Touting the bipartisan infrastructure law he signed in 2021, Biden said, “Last year, we funded 700,000 major construction projects – 700,000 all across America. From highways to airports to bridges to tunnels to broadband.”

    Facts First: Biden’s “700,000” figure is wildly inaccurate; it adds an extra two zeros to the correct figure Biden used in a speech last week and the White House has also used before: 7,000 projects. The White House acknowledged his misstatement later on Thursday by correcting the official transcript to say 7,000 rather than 700,000.

    Biden said, “Well, here’s the deal: I put a – we put a cap, and it’s now in effect – now in effect, as of January 1 – of $2,000 a year on prescription drug costs for seniors.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claims that this cap is now in effect and that it came into effect on January 1 are false. The $2,000 annual cap contained in the Inflation Reduction Act that Biden signed last year – on Medicare Part D enrollees’ out-of-pocket spending on covered prescription drugs – takes effect in 2025. The maximum may be higher than $2,000 in subsequent years, since it is tied to Medicare Part D’s per capita costs.

    Asked for comment, a White House official noted that other Inflation Reduction Act health care provisions that will save Americans money did indeed come into effect on January 1, 2023.

    – CNN’s Tami Luhby contributed to this item.

    Criticizing former President Donald Trump over his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, Biden said, “Back then, only 3.5 million people had been – even had their first vaccination, because the other guy and the other team didn’t think it mattered a whole lot.”

    Facts First: Biden is free to criticize Trump’s vaccine rollout, but his “only 3.5 million” figure is misleading at best. As of the day Trump left office in January 2021, about 19 million people had received a first shot of a Covid-19 vaccine, according to figures published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The “3.5 million” figure Biden cited is, in reality, the number of people at the time who had received two shots to complete their primary vaccination series.

    Someone could perhaps try to argue that completing a primary series is what Biden meant by “had their first vaccination” – but he used a different term, “fully vaccinated,” to refer to the roughly 230 million people in that very same group today. His contrasting language made it sound like there are 230 million people with at least two shots today versus 3.5 million people with just one shot when he took office. That isn’t true.

    Biden said Republicans want to cut taxes for billionaires, “who pay virtually only 3% of their income now – 3%, they pay.”

    Facts First: Biden’s “3%” claim is incorrect. For the second time in less than a week, Biden inaccurately described a 2021 finding from economists in his administration that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families paid an average of 8.2% of their income in federal individual income taxes between 2010 and 2018; after CNN inquired about Biden’s “3%” claim on Thursday, the White House published a corrected official transcript that uses “8%” instead. Also, it’s important to note that even that 8% number is contested, since it is an alternative calculation that includes unrealized capital gains that are not treated as taxable income under federal law.

    “Biden’s numbers are way too low,” said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute think tank, though Gleckman also said we don’t know precisely what tax rates billionaires do pay. Gleckman wrote in an email: “In 2019, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabe Zucman estimated the top 400 households paid an average effective tax rate of about 23 percent in 2018. They got a lot of attention at the time because that rate was lower than the average rate of 24 percent for the bottom half of the income distribution. But it still was way more than 2 or 3, or even 8 percent.”

    Biden has cited the 8% statistic in various other speeches, but unlike the administration economists who came up with it, he tends not to explain that it doesn’t describe tax rates in a conventional way. And regardless, he said “3%” in this speech and “2%” in a speech last week.

    Biden cited a 2021 report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy think tank that found that 55 of the country’s largest corporations had made $40 billion in profit in their previous fiscal year but not paid any federal corporate income taxes. Before touting the 15% alternative corporate minimum tax he signed into law in last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, Biden said, “The days are over when corporations are paying zero in federal taxes.”

    Facts First: Biden exaggerated. The new minimum tax will reduce the number of companies that don’t pay any federal taxes, but it’s not true that the days of companies paying zero are “over.” That’s because the minimum tax, on the “book income” companies report to investors, only applies to companies with at least $1 billion in average annual income. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, only 14 of the companies on its 2021 list of 55 non-payers reported having US pre-tax income of at least $1 billion.

    In other words, there will clearly still be some large and profitable corporations paying no federal income tax even after the minimum tax takes effect this year. The exact number is not yet known.

    Matthew Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, told CNN in the fall that the new tax is “an important step forward from the status quo” and that it will raise substantial revenue, but he also said: “I wouldn’t want to assert that the minimum tax will end the phenomenon of zero-tax profitable corporations. A more accurate phrasing would be to say that the minimum tax will *help* ensure that *the most profitable* corporations pay at least some federal income tax.”

    There are lots of nuances to the tax; you can read more specifics here. Asked for comment on Thursday, a White House official told CNN: “The Inflation Reduction Act ensures the wealthiest corporations pay a 15% minimum tax, precisely the corporations the President focused on during the campaign and in office. The President’s full Made in America tax plan would ensure all corporations pay a 15% minimum tax, and the President has called on Congress to pass that plan.”

    Noting the big increase in the federal debt under Trump, Biden said that his administration has taken a “different path” and boasted: “As a result, the last two years – my administration – we cut the deficit by $1.7 trillion, the largest reduction in debt in American history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s boast leaves out important context. It is true that the federal deficit fell by a total of $1.7 trillion under Biden in the 2021 and 2022 fiscal years, including a record $1.4 trillion drop in 2022 – but it is highly questionable how much credit Biden deserves for this reduction. Biden did not mention that the primary reason the deficit fell so substantially was that it had skyrocketed to a record high under Trump in 2020 because of bipartisan emergency pandemic relief spending, then fell as expected as the spending expired as planned. Independent analysts say Biden’s own actions, including his laws and executive orders, have had the overall effect of adding to current and projected future deficits, not reducing those deficits.

    Dan White, senior director of economic research at Moody’s Analytics – an economics firm whose assessments Biden has repeatedly cited during his presidency – told CNN’s Matt Egan in October: “On net, the policies of the administration have increased the deficit, not reduced it.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group, wrote in September that Biden’s actions will add more than $4.8 trillion to deficits from 2021 through 2031, or $2.5 trillion if you don’t count the American Rescue Plan pandemic relief bill of 2021.

    National Economic Council director Brian Deese wrote on the White House website last week that the American Rescue Plan pandemic relief bill “facilitated a strong economic recovery and enabled the responsible wind-down of emergency spending programs,” thereby reducing the deficit; David Kelly, chief global strategist at J.P. Morgan Funds, told Egan in October that the Biden administration does deserve credit for the recovery that has pushed the deficit downward. And Deese correctly noted that Biden’s signature legislation, last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, is expected to bring down deficits by more than $200 billion over the next decade.

    Still, the deficit-reducing impact of that one bill is expected to be swamped by the deficit-increasing impact of various additional bills and policies Biden has approved.

    Biden said, “Wages are up, and they’re growing faster than inflation. Over the past six months, inflation has gone down every month and, God willing, will continue to do that.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim that wages are up and growing faster than inflation is true if you start the calculation seven months ago; “real” wages, which take inflation into account, started rising in mid-2022 as inflation slowed. (Biden is right that inflation has declined, on an annual basis, every month for the last six months.) However, real wages are lower today than they were both a full year ago and at the beginning of Biden’s presidency in January 2021. That’s because inflation was so high in 2021 and the beginning of 2022.

    There are various ways to measure real wages. Real average hourly earnings declined 1.7% between December 2021 and December 2022, while real average weekly earnings (which factors in the number of hours people worked) declined 3.1% over that period.

    Biden said he was disappointed that the first bill passed by the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives “added $114 billion to the deficit.”

    Facts First: Biden is correct about how the bill would affect the deficit if it became law. He accurately cited an estimate from the government’s nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    The bill would eliminate more than $71 billion of the $80 billion in additional funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that Biden signed into law in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Congressional Budget Office found that taking away this funding – some of which the Biden administration said will go toward increased audits of high-income individuals and large corporations – would result in a loss of nearly $186 billion in government revenue between 2023 and 2032, for a net increase to the deficit of about $114 billion.

    The Republican bill has no chance of becoming law under Biden, who has vowed to veto it in the highly unlikely event it got through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

    Biden said that “MAGA Republicans” in the House “want to impose a 30 percent national sales tax on everything from food, clothing, school supplies, housing, cars – a whole deal.” He said they want to do that because “they want to eliminate the income tax system.”

    Facts First: This is a fair description of the Republicans’ “FairTax” bill. The bill would eliminate federal income taxes, plus the payroll tax, capital gains tax and estate tax, and replace it with a national sales tax. The bill describes a rate of 23% on the “gross payments” on a product or service, but when the tax rate is described in the way consumers are used to sales taxes being described, it’s actually right around 30%, as a pro-FairTax website acknowledges.

    It is not clear how much support the bill currently has among the House Republican caucus. Notably, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told CNN’s Manu Raju this week that he opposes the bill – though, while seeking right-wing votes for his bid for speaker in early January, he promised its supporters that it would be considered in committee. Biden wryly said in his speech, “The Republican speaker says he’s not so sure he’s for it.”

    Biden claimed the unemployment rate “is the lowest it’s been in 50 years.”

    Facts First: This is true. The unemployment rate was just below 3.5% in December, the lowest figure since 1969.

    The headline monthly rate, which is rounded to a single decimal place, was reported as 3.5% in December and also reported as 3.5% in three months of President Donald Trump’s tenure, in late 2019 and in early 2020. But if you look at more precise figures, December was indeed the lowest since 1969 – 3.47% – just below the figures for February 2020, January 2020 and September 2019.

    Biden said that the unemployment rates for Black and Hispanic Americans are “near record lows” and that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is “the lowest ever recorded” and the “lowest ever in history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claims are accurate, though it’s worth noting that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities has only been released by the government since 2008.

    The Black or African American unemployment rate was 5.7% in December, not far from the record low of 5.3% that was set in August 2019. (This data series goes back to 1972.) The rate was 9.2% in January 2021, the month Biden became president. The Hispanic or Latino unemployment rate was 4.1% in December, just above the record low of 4.0% that was set in September 2019. (This data series goes back to 1973.) The rate was 8.5% in January 2021.

    The unemployment rate for people with disabilities was 5.0% in December, the lowest since the beginning of the data series in 2008. The rate was 12.0% in January 2021.

    Biden said that fewer families are facing foreclosure than before the pandemic.

    Facts First: Biden is correct. According to a report published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, about 28,500 people had new foreclosure notations on their credit reports in the third quarter of 2022, the most recent quarter for which data is available; that was down from about 71,420 people with new foreclosure notations in the fourth quarter of 2019 and 74,860 people in the first quarter of 2020.

    Foreclosures plummeted in the second quarter of 2020 because of government moratoriums put in place because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Foreclosures spiked in 2022, relative to 2020-2021 levels, after the expiry of these moratoriums, but they remained very low by historical standards.

    Biden said, “More American families have health insurance today than any time in American history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim is accurate. An analysis provided to CNN by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies US health care, found that about 295 million US residents had health insurance in 2021, the highest on record – and Jennifer Tolbert, the foundation’s director for state health reform, told CNN this week that “I expect the number of people with insurance continued to increase in 2022.”

    Tolbert noted that the number of insured residents generally rises over time because of population growth, but she added that “it is not a given” that there will be an increase in the number of insured residents every year – the number declined slightly under Trump from 2018 to 2019, for example – and that “policy changes as well as economic factors also affect these numbers.”

    As CNN’s Tami Luhby has reported, sign-ups on the federal insurance exchange created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, have spiked nearly 50% under Biden. Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan pandemic relief law and then the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act temporarily boosted federal premium subsidies for exchange enrollees, and the Biden administration has also taken various other steps to get people to sign up on the exchanges. In addition, enrollment in Medicaid health insurance has increased significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic, in part because of a bipartisan 2020 law that temporarily prevented people from being disenrolled from the program.

    The percentage of residents without health insurance fell to an all-time low of 8.0% in the first quarter of 2022, according to an analysis published last summer by the federal government’s Department of Health and Human Services. That meant there were 26.4 million people without health insurance, down from 48.3 million in 2010, the year Obamacare was signed into law.

    Biden said, “And over the last two years, more than 10 million people have applied to start a small business. That’s more than any two years in all of recorded American history.”

    Facts First: This is true. There were about 5.4 million business applications in 2021, the highest since 2005 (the first year for which the federal government released this data for a full year), and about 5.1 million business applications in 2022. Not every application turns into a real business, but the number of “high-propensity” business applications – those deemed to have a high likelihood of turning into a business with a payroll – also hit a record in 2021 and saw its second-highest total in 2022.

    Trump’s last full year in office, 2020, also set a then-record for total and high-propensity applications. There are various reasons for the pandemic-era boom in entrepreneurship, which began after millions of Americans lost their jobs in early 2020. Among them: some newly unemployed workers seized the moment to start their own enterprises; Americans had extra money from stimulus bills signed by Trump and Biden; interest rates were particularly low until a series of rate hikes that began in the spring of 2022.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What to know about George Santos and his campaign finance issues as questions grow | CNN Politics

    What to know about George Santos and his campaign finance issues as questions grow | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Rep. George Santos began his third week as a congressman with an array of questions still swirling around the New York Republican’s personal and campaign finances.

    He ended the week with even more unanswered questions – after his campaign submitted a raft of changes to federal election regulators, including appearing to install a new campaign treasurer without that person’s permission.

    “I can’t think of another example (of a campaign) that has presented such a wide variety of legal concerns,” said Erin Chlopak, senior director of campaign finance at the watchdog group Campaign Legal Center and a former lawyer with the Federal Election Commission. “I feel like the George Santos saga is like a campaign finance law school course, all in one.”

    Santos, who faces multiple investigations about his finances and lies about his biography and resume, repeatedly refused to respond to reporters’ inquiries about his filings and finances this week – saying at one point that he does not “touch” FEC reports.

    Leaving his office Friday morning on Capitol Hill, Santos told a reporter that he would put together a news conference “soon” to “address everything.”

    “We’ll give you all the answers to everything you’re asking for,” he said.

    Santos’ personal lawyer Joe Murray declined to comment when reached by CNN this week. “In light of all the complaints that have been filed, it would just be inappropriate to discuss anything about it,” he said.

    Santos’ longtime campaign treasurer Nancy Marks has not responded to multiple inquiries from CNN.

    Here’s what you should know about the latest developments:

    As of Friday afternoon, it was not clear who serves as treasurer of the Santos campaign – the person responsible for filing disclosure reports with the FEC, authorizing spending and ensuring that the campaign complies with federal campaign finance laws.

    Earlier this week, Santos’ campaign filed paperwork installing Thomas Datwyler, a Wisconsin-based political consultant, as the new treasurer of his campaign and several Santos-aligned political committees.

    But in a statement Wednesday, Datwyler’s lawyer said that his client had turned down the treasurer’s position and that the campaign had filed the paperwork without Datwyler’s authorization.

    Campaign finance experts say only someone with access to the campaign committee’s login credentials can file electronic amendments with the FEC.

    Derek Ross, Datwyler’s attorney, told CNN that agency officials said they were aware of the situation and sent letters to Datwyler on Friday to “confirm the authenticity and accuracy of the various filings.”

    Datwyler’s team has responded, “notifying the FEC that the filings are unauthorized and Mr. Datwyler should be removed as treasurer,” Ross said.

    Santos, like all congressional candidates, faces a looming Tuesday deadline to file new reports with the FEC that detail his fundraising and spending during the closing weeks of 2022.

    Santos this week also filed a slew of amended reports with the FEC that only added to the confusion about the source of the loans he has said he made to his campaign.

    In some filings, the campaign did not check boxes denoting that two six-figure loans came from the candidate’s personal funds.

    Campaign finance experts say it’s hard to tell whether the unmarked boxes amounted to little more than sloppy bookkeeping or point to something more serious. Over the course of his campaign, Santos’ reports have offered inconsistent information about the loans.

    But how Santos achieved the financial windfall to provide more than $700,000 in loans to his successful 2022 campaign has been a central question ever since the 34-year-old flipped a Long Island-based House seat in November, helping Republicans secure their narrow majority in the chamber.

    During his unsuccessful 2020 campaign for the House, he reported a salary of $55,000 and no assets in his candidate filings to Congress.

    Two years later, Santos reported a $750,000 salary from the Devolder Organization, which he said had earned between $1,000,001 and $5 million in income the previous year. He also reported owning an apartment in Rio De Janeiro, a checking account valued at between $100,001 and $250,000, and a savings account worth between $1,000,001 and $5 million.

    For weeks, Santos has faced questions about the dozens of expenses his campaign has reported at exactly $199.99, one cent below the threshold above which the campaign is required to retain receipts.

    The Campaign Legal Center has filed a complaint with the FEC that describes the disbursements as “odd and seemingly impossible.” It notes that one of the $199.99 expenses was purported to be for a “hotel stay” at the luxury W Hotel South Beach in Florida in October 2021, where the lowest-price room typically would have cost more than $700.

    But The Washington Post first reported this week that Santos’ campaign briefly reported in an earlier submission to the FEC a raft of additional just-under-$200 expenses – but described both the recipients and purpose of the disbursements as “anonymous.”

    Those anonymous entries later were removed in revised filings.

    Clopak of the Campaign Legal Center said those entries just add to the cloud surrounding Santos’ campaign.

    “We have campaign finance disclosure laws to serve to ensure a number of interests,” she said. “One of the things is to make sure that voters are informed about the sources of … the money that they spend and what they spend it on.”

    “When people file reports indicating that the recipients of their campaign spending is ‘anonymous,’ that defeats the very purpose of those transparency laws,” Clopak said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Blinken to visit Israel and West Bank with tensions high after outbreak of violence | CNN Politics

    Blinken to visit Israel and West Bank with tensions high after outbreak of violence | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s trip to Jerusalem and Ramallah next week has gained new urgency after a wave of deadly violence in Israel and the West Bank.

    His trip, which also includes a stop in Egypt, was already expected to be complicated, as it will be the top US diplomat’s first visit to Israel since the new Israeli government, which includes ultra-nationalists and ultra-religious parties, took power.

    Now, Blinken is poised to face a rapidly escalating crisis that shows no signs of de-escalation.

    At least seven people were killed in a mass shooting at a synagogue in Jerusalem Friday that is being described as a terrorist attack. Israeli police said the gunman, who was killed by police, was a 21-year-old resident of East Jerusalem who appeared to have acted alone.

    On Thursday, Israeli forces killed nine Palestinians and wounded several others in a raid on a refugee camp in the West Bank city of Jenin. Another Palestinian man was shot dead by Israeli troops later that day in the town of al-Ram, adding to the death toll on what was the deadliest day for Palestinians in the West Bank in over a year, according to CNN records. Then overnight on Friday Israel launched air strikes on Gaza after rockets were fired towards Israel.

    The Palestinian Authority responded to the Jenin raid by announcing that it will cease security coordination with Israel starting immediately.

    While US officials have indicated that the days of violence will not upend the top diplomat’s trip, the White House on Friday condemned the “heinous terror attack” on the synagogue and State Department officials on Thursday expressed concern about the security situation following the Jenin raid.

    “There is the potential for things to worsen in security terms, in terms of protests or any other kind of kinetic action,” Barbara Leaf, the top State Department official for the region, told reporters on Thursday ahead of the synagogue shooting, adding that the department is in close touch with diplomatic and security personnel on the ground. She also urged the two sides to retain and deepen security coordination.

    The Biden administration has been careful in its language and sought to publicly avoid criticizing the new government in Israel, which is led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and includes controversial far-right government ministers. Over the past few weeks, US officials have held numerous engagements with the new government – Blinken’s trip follows visits by national security adviser Jake Sullivan and CIA Director Bill Burns. Israel is one of the US’s staunchest allies and the importance of the relationship was underlined earlier this week as the two nations launched their largest joint military exercise ever on Monday.

    Aaron David Miller, who served for two decades at the State Department as an analyst, negotiator and adviser on Middle East issues, told CNN that he has “never seen an administration engage with a new Israeli Government as frequently and as early and at as senior level as this one.”

    “I think their strategy was basically to say, ‘OK, you formed this government, your hands are on the wheel. You told us you’re in charge, and we’re now going to engage with you directly and intensely. Because if things head south, you’re the one who’s going to have to be responsible with respect to controlling your own ministers,’” he said. Miller said he predicts the relationship between the two administrations will be publicly non-confrontational, especially as Biden looks to ensure he is seen as pro-Israel ahead of a potential US reelection campaign.

    The far-right elements of the new Israeli government, meanwhile, have already exacerbated tensions between Israelis and Palestinians.

    The new national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir has previously been convicted for supporting terrorism and inciting anti-Arab racism. Earlier this year, after being named minister, he visited the Jerusalem compound known as Temple Mount by Jews and the Haram al-Sharif or Noble Sanctuary by Muslims, in a move that drew international condemnation.

    Although he visited during open hours for non-Muslims, his visit was seen as controversial because Ben Gvir has publicly called for changes to the delicate status quo agreement that governs the compound.

    State Department spokesman Ned Price responded at the time by saying that the US believed the visit has “the potential to exacerbate tensions and to provoke violence.”

    Although the Biden administration has advocated for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there has been very little movement and seemingly few active efforts toward that goal. It is something that Blinken will address during his meetings with Israelis and Palestinians, said Leaf, the State Department official.

    Miller said he does not expect any progress to be made on this issue during Blinken’s visit, which will instead be more of an “extended condolence call” due to the synagogue attack in Jerusalem Friday.

    Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of the advocacy group J-Street, which pushes for a two-state solution, said that he believes Blinken’s trip is well-timed, and sends an important message about American involvement.

    He said the administration should try to articulate both privately to the new Israeli government as well as publicly the things that the US would find unacceptable, such as “plans for what amounts to de facto annexation of territory on the West Bank.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP-led committees plan to issue subpoenas in Biden probes without consulting Democrats | CNN Politics

    GOP-led committees plan to issue subpoenas in Biden probes without consulting Democrats | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The GOP-led House Judiciary Committee and select subcommittee on the so-called weaponization of the federal government plan to adopt a rule that will allow Republican members to issue subpoenas without consulting Democrats days ahead of time, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

    The plan, articulated to GOP members of the select subcommittee by its top Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio during their first meeting Friday, will expedite the subpoena process as both panels move forward with probes of the Biden administration, two of the sources said.

    It reflects the “urgency” of Republican plans to investigate the Biden administration on several fronts, the sources added.

    A third source told CNN that the move will effectively allow Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee and select subcommittee to unilaterally issue subpoenas.

    In doing so, Republicans are taking a page from Democrats and former Oversight Committee chairman, Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, who previously waived rules that required members of the opposite party be consulted before subpoenas were issued.

    At the time, Republicans slammed the decision by Democrats as a violation of the bipartisan agreement that governs the subpoena process for certain House committees.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice Department announces new arrests in plot to kill New York-based journalist directed from Iran | CNN Politics

    Justice Department announces new arrests in plot to kill New York-based journalist directed from Iran | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Justice Department announced new arrests Friday in a plot to kill a New York-based journalist and human rights activist who is critical of the Iranian government.

    The three men charged, who are allegedly part of an Eastern European criminal organization with ties to Iran, are facing murder-for-hire and money laundering charges for plotting to kill journalist Masih Alinejad.

    All three of the defendants, Attorney General Merrick Garland said Friday, are currently in custody.

    “Today’s indictment exposes a dangerous menace to national security – a double threat posed by a vicious transnational crime group operating from what it thought was the safe haven of a rogue nation. That rogue nation is the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said at a news conference unveiling the charges.

    Alinejad vowed to continue her activism in a video statement released Friday shortly after the department announced the charges: “Let me make it clear: I’m not scared for my life.”

    “I’m going to continue giving voice to brave Iranian leaders, women, men, inside Iran who are trying to save the rest of the world from one of the most dangerous virus(es), which is called Islamic Republic,” she said. “If we don’t take a strong action right now, we will face these terrorists on US soil more and more.”

    One of the three men had been arrested this past summer in the Brooklyn neighborhood where Alinejad lives. At the time, he was charged with possessing a firearm after police found in the back seat of his vehicle a suitcase containing a “Norinco AK-47-style assault rifle … loaded with a round in the chamber and a magazine attached, along with a separate second magazine, and a total of approximately 66 rounds of ammunition,” according to a complaint.

    The DOJ said in a statement Friday that since at least July, the three men have been “tasked with carrying out” the murder of Alinejad, “who previously has been the target of plots by the government of Iran to intimidate, harass and kidnap” her.

    “As recently as 2020 and 2021, Iranian intelligence officials and assets plotted to kidnap the (Alinejad) from within the United States for rendition to Iran in an effort to silence the (Alinejad’s) criticism of the regime,” the department said in a statement.

    In a CNN interview last year, Alinejad said that the Iranian government had been targeting her and her family for her efforts to give voice to the protest movement in the country where she was born.

    “I’m not scared (for) my life at all because I know what I’m doing. I have only one life, and I dedicated my life to give voice to Iranian people inside Iran who bravely go to the streets – face guns and bullets to protest against Iranian regime – but this is happening in America,” she said at the time.

    Alinejad was targeted in another alleged kidnapping plot by Iranian nationals in 2021 after she spoke out against the Islamic Republic. The plot was organized by an Iranian intelligence official, an indictment alleged, but Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied any involvement, calling the accusation “baseless and ridiculous,” according to the semi-official news agency ISNA.

    This story has been updated with additional details Friday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prices rose at a slower pace last month, the Fed’s favored inflation gauge shows | CNN Business

    Prices rose at a slower pace last month, the Fed’s favored inflation gauge shows | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Minneapolis
    CNN
     — 

    The Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge showed prices rose at a slower pace last month, indicating further progress in the central bank’s battle with higher prices.

    The Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, or PCE, rose by 5% in December, compared to a year earlier, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

    In December alone, prices rose 0.1% from November.

    On a month-to-month basis, prices for goods decreased 0.7% and prices for services increased 0.5%, according to the PCE price index for December. Within those categories, food prices increased 0.2% and energy prices decreased 5.1%.

    Core PCE, which doesn’t include the more volatile food and energy categories, increased by 4.4% annually, down from November’s annual rate of 4.7%. On a monthly basis, it was up 0.3%.

    Core PCE, which is now at its lowest level since October 2021, is the Fed’s favored inflation gauge as it provides a more complete picture of consumer costs and spending.

    “It’s clear, continued progress on the inflation front — which is something we expected, but good to see,” Joe Davis, Vanguard’s global chief economist, told CNN. “I think you’re seeing continued softening across the entire report.”

    The data showed that consumers pulled back in December, with spending falling by 0.2% from the month before. Personal income rose 0.2% last month, the smallest increase since April.

    Through much of 2022, consumer spending remained robust in spite of high inflation, rising interest rates, and simmering recession fears. However, as the months dragged on, economic data suggested that consumers were running out of dry powder: Reliance on credit grew and delinquencies started to tick up, while savings levels declined.

    Retail sales fell 1.1% in December, the Commerce Department reported earlier this month.

    In Friday’s report, the personal saving rate as a percentage of disposable income increased to 3.4% from 2.9% in November. The savings rate is now up 1 percentage point from its September low.

    The increase is “a sign that consumers are growing cautious after rapidly drawing down their savings last year,” Lydia Boussour, senior economist for EY Parthenon, said in a statement.

    Separately on Friday, a closely watched measurement of consumer attitudes toward the economy showed increased confidence in January for the second consecutive month. The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index landed at 64.9 for January, up nearly 9% from December.

    Despite the uptick, the director of the school’s Surveys of Consumers cautioned that there are “considerable downside risks” to sentiment and that two-thirds of consumers surveyed said they expect an economic downturn to occur in the next year.

    Massud Ghaussy, senior analyst of Nasdaq IR Intelligence, said consumer sentiment hinges heavily on the labor market.

    “The big question this year so far is, ‘is the jobs market the next shoe to fall?’” he told CNN. “The economic picture is still quite murky, and the reason why we’re seeing consumer confidence still relatively strong is because of a strong job market.”

    Friday’s PCE report is the last key inflation data before the Federal Reserve meets next week for its first policymaking meeting of 2023.

    Economists and investors are expecting the Fed to raise its benchmark rate by just quarter of a point, signaling another downshift following a spree of blockbuster rate hikes last year.

    The Fed is not expected to pivot simply because inflation is cooling, Davis said, noting that PCE isn’t yet at the Fed’s 2% target.

    The labor market, which has remained strong and tight despite inflation and interest rate hikes, remains a crucial area of focus in the Fed’s inflation fight. The latest data on employment turnover as well as job growth will be released next week.

    “The labor market is clearly Exhibit A in this debate between a soft landing or a mild recession,” Davis said. “The bigger wild card is, do the modest layoffs that we’re seeing in the technology sector in particular spread to other parts of the economy?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Peter Navarro contempt of Congress trial will be delayed for months, judge says | CNN Politics

    Peter Navarro contempt of Congress trial will be delayed for months, judge says | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge on Friday delayed the contempt of Congress trial for former Donald Trump adviser Peter Navarro, likely for months, to allow for additional pre-trial debate over the role executive privilege could play when the case goes to a jury.

    Over the course of a nearly two-hour hearing Friday, US District Judge Amit Mehta grilled Justice Department prosecutors on the position the department has taken, in previous internal Office of Legal Counsel opinions, that close aides to a president can be immune from congressional subpoenas.

    The trial had been scheduled to begin on Monday.

    Mehta had opened the door to the possibility that Navarro could present evidence at trial – potentially taking the stand – that he had been told by Trump that the former president was invoking executive privilege over his testimony to the House January 6 Committee.

    So far, Navarro has presented no evidence that Trump made a such an invocation when he was subpoenaed for documents and testimony by the now defunct House January 6 select committee.

    Federal prosecutors bristled at the idea that Navarro should still be allowed to present such evidence, arguing that it doesn’t exist in the first place and that if it did, it would not be up to the jury to decide whether such invocation would have shielded Navarro from the subpoenas.

    Mehta ultimately decided that the issue raised legal questions that needed to be decided before trial, so he postponed its Monday start date.

    The judge did not schedule a new date for the trial, and instead set a briefing schedule on the privilege questions that will extend through the end of March.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kavanaugh says he’s ‘optimistic’ about the Supreme Court and trashes US News law school rankings | CNN Politics

    Kavanaugh says he’s ‘optimistic’ about the Supreme Court and trashes US News law school rankings | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh said this week that he is “optimistic” about the court, his colleagues, and the country in the first-known public comments any justice has made off the bench since the release of an investigative report into the leak of a draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade.

    Kavanaugh, speaking at Notre Dame Law School, did not directly reference the leak investigation, but he said that while judges get a lot of criticism and “heat” at times, he aspires to be an optimist.

    “I’m optimistic about the court, I’m optimistic about the country, I’m optimistic about my colleagues,” he said.

    Separately, the justice also presented a dissent of US News & World Report’s law school rankings.

    His comments were delivered on Monday but only released publicly on Thursday in a video from Notre Dame.

    Kavanaugh reminisced about his time working as a lawyer at the White House during the George W. Bush administration and he said he learned from the former president not to worry about “today’s criticism, just stay optimistic about the future.”

    Kavanaugh also said that the unusually long lag in the release of the court’s first opinion of the term was simply due to a “coincidence” concerning “which mix of cases” were argued in October and November.

    The court only released its first opinion this week – breaking recent tradition.

    Court watchers had speculated that the reason the court had waited much longer than usual to issue an opinion this term was that it was anticipating the release of the investigative report. That report was ultimately produced on January 19, with the justices announcing that the Marshal of the court had been unable to identify the person responsible for the leak.

    Kavanaugh suggested there was no connection between the report and the lag in opinions.

    Kavanaugh also said that the relationships between justices were good despite an array of divisive opinions that were released last term, including the abortion decision, that largely broke down along ideological lines.

    “We work well together, we get along together,” he said.

    And he praised his two most recent colleagues. He said that he had been charged with throwing a dinner for Justice Amy Coney Barrett to welcome her to the bench and he called her an “unusually good person.” He said that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is always “fully prepared” and off to a “great start.”

    The leak of the draft opinion last spring triggered protests across the country. In June, a man was arrested in Kavanaugh’s neighborhood and later charged with attempted murder of a Supreme Court justice. Kavanaugh has never made any public remarks about the incident.

    Gail Curley, the marshal of the Supreme Court who was tasked last term with investigating the leak, said in her report that her team conducted 126 formal interviews of 97 Supreme Court employees. The employees were asked to sign affidavits, under penalty of perjury, to affirm that they did not disclose the draft opinion and had provided all “pertinent information” related to the disclosure of the draft.

    In a separate statement Curley clarified that she had spoken to all nine justices, found nothing to implicate them or their spouses, and declined to require them to sign affidavits.

    Kavanaugh also launched into a lengthy criticism of US News & World Report’s ranking of law schools after being asked.

    The publication announced earlier this month that it was changing the formula used to determine its list of best law schools after several prestigious institutions – including Kavanaugh’s own Yale Law School – decided to bow out of the famed rankings.

    “I think those ratings are very problematic. I think they’re based on things, from what I understand, that are very amorphous, very subjective, very word-of-mouth. Factors that don’t correlate well with the education that you’re actually receiving,” Kavanaugh said.

    “And I find them highly problematic. The reputation score – that’s kind of a joke, isn’t it? I mean that’s – who, who has the knowledge of all the different scores that’s judged to give anything approaching a good analysis of that?” the justice added.

    “I should probably stop but I’m going to say it anyway,” Kavanaugh added. “They look at some – you know, how much money is spent on this versus that and the library. You know, does that really show whether a student’s getting a better education at school A or school B?”

    Asked if he takes the publication’s rankings into account when he’s looking at law clerks, Kavanaugh replied: “No.”

    In a letter to law school deans published earlier this month, the publication announced that it would place less importance on surveys that ask academic administrators, lawyers and judges to rate the quality of institutions and more emphasis on measures such as bar exam pass rates and employment outcomes. The changes stem from conversations with more than 100 law school deans and representatives, according to the letter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Peru’s embattled president could have eased the crisis. What happened? | CNN

    Peru’s embattled president could have eased the crisis. What happened? | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    When Dina Boluarte was anointed Peru’s sixth president in five years, she faced battles on two fronts: appeasing the lawmakers who had ousted her boss and predecessor Pedro Castillo, and calming protesterse enraged by the dethroning of yet another president.

    She called for a “political truce” with Congress on her first day of her job — a peace offering to the legislative body that had been at odds with Castillo and impeached him in December after he undemocratically attempted to dissolve Congress.

    But nearly two months on, her presidency is looking even more beleaguered than Castillo’s aborted term. Several ministers in her government have resigned while the country has been rocked by its most violent protests in decades. She was forced to once again call for a truce on Tuesday – this time appealing to the protesters, many of whom hail from Peru’s majority-indigenous rural areas, saying in Quechua that she is one of them.

    Boluarte, who was born in a largely indigenous region in south-central Peru where Quechua is the most spoken language, might have been the leader to channel protesters’ frustrations and work with them. She has made much of her rural origins, and rose to power initially as Castillo’s vice president on the leftwing Peru Libre party ticket, buoyed by the rural and indigenous vote.

    But her plea for mutual understanding with protesters now is likely too late in what analysts are calling the deadliest popular uprising in South America in recent years. Officials say 56 civilians and one police officer has died in the violence, and hundreds more have been injured, as protesters call for fresh elections, a new constitution and Boluarte’s resignation.

    Boluarte has tried to placate protesters, asking Congress for an earlier election date. But Peru watchers say she already made the fatal error of distancing herself from rural constituents after she took the top job as Peru’s first woman president.

    “One has to understand Boluarte’s own ambitions, she was clearly willing to sacrifice her leftist ideas and principles in order to build a coalition with the right to hold onto power,” Jo-Marie Burt, a senior fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America and an expert on Peru, told CNN. “And to use force against the very same people who voted for the Castillo-Boluarte ticket.”

    Castillo’s brief term saw him face a hostile Congress in the hands of the opposition, limiting his political capital and capacity to operate. ” (Boluarte) had to make a choice: either she went the Castillo way and spent the next four years fighting a Congress that wants to impeach her or she sided with the right and got power,” Alonso Gurmendi, a lecturer in International Relations at the University of Oxford, who is a Peruvian legal expert, told CNN.

    She chose the latter, experts say, distancing herself from Castillo and instead relying on support of a broad coalition of right-wing politicians to stay in presidency. CNN has reached out to Boluarte’s office for comment and has made repeated requests for an interview.

    During her inauguration, former political rival Keiko Fujimori – whose father Alberto Fujimori is a former president who used security forces to repress opponents during his decade-long rule of Peru – said Boluarte could “count on the support and backing” of her party.

    Boluarte’s woes are a far cry from her early days in Peruvian’s civil service, working at the National Registry of Identification and Civil Status in Surco, as an advisor to senior management and, later, as the head of the local office.

    She ran as a candidate for mayor of Surquillo with the Marxist-Leninist Peru Libre Party in 2018. She failed to gain a seat in the 2020 parliamentary elections, but had better luck the following year, as Castillo’s running-mate.

    In an interview with CNN en Espanol that year, Boluarte clarified a statement she made about dissolving Congress: “We need a Congress that works for the needs of Peruvian society and that coordinates positively with the executive so that both powers of state can work in a coordinated manner to meet the multiple needs of Peruvian society. We do not want an obstructionist Congress … At no time have I said that we are going to close Congress.”

    Castillo, a former teacher and union leader, was also from rural Peru and positioned himself as a man of the people. Despite his political inexperience and mounting corruption scandals, Castillo’s presidency was a symbolic victory for many of his rural supporters. They hoped he would bring better prospects to the country’s rural and indigenous people who have long felt excluded from Peru’s economic boom in the past decade.

    Indigenous women take part in a protest against Boluarte's government in Lima on January 24.

    His ousting from power last year was seen by some of his supporters as another attempt by Peru’s coastal elites to discount them.

    The public have long been disillusioned with the legislative body, which has been criticized as being self-interested and out-of-touch. In a January poll by the Institute of Peruvian Studies (IEP) more than 80% of Peruvians say they disapproved of Congress.

    The public also have a dim view of Boluarte, according to polling by IPSOS, which found that 68% disapproved of her in December. That figure rose to 71% in January, according to the poll. She is more unpopular in rural areas, according to the same poll, which found that she had an 85% disapproval score in rural regions in January compared to urban areas (76%).

    In January 2022, Peru Libre expelled her from the party. She told Peruvian newspaper La República at the time she had “never embraced the ideology of Peru Libre.”

    As protests spread through many of Peru’s 25 regions following Castillo’s detention, Boluarte’s government declared a state of emergency and doubled down on law-and-order policies.

    The country has since seen its highest civilian death toll since strongman Alberto Fujimori was in power, say human rights advocates, when 17 civilians were killed during a protest in the south-eastern Puno region on January 9. A police officer was burned to death in Puno on the following day. Autopsies of the 17 dead civilians found wounds caused by firearm projectiles, the city’s head of legal medicine told CNN en Español.

    Human rights groups have accused Boluarte of using state violence to stymie protests and on January 11, Peru’s prosecutor launched an investigation into the president and other key ministers for the alleged crime of “genocide, qualified homicide, and serious injuries” in relation to the bloodshed.

    Boluarte has said she will cooperate with the probe, but plans to remain in office and has shown little sympathy for the demonstrators. “I am not going to resign, my commitment is with Peru, not with that tiny group that is making the country bleed,” she said in a televised speech days after the investigation was announced.

    Boluarte has tried to placate protesters, asking Congress for an earlier election date.

    When asked why she has not prevented security officials from using lethal weapons on protesters, Boluarte said on Tuesday that investigations will determine where the bullets “come from,” speculating without evidence that Bolivian activists may have brought weapons into Peru – a claim that Burt describes as “a total conspiracy theory.”

    Boluarte has done little to ease the angry rhetoric deployed by public officials, parts of the press and the public in criticizing the ongoing demonstrations. Boluarte herself described the protests as “terrorism” – a label that the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) has warned could instigate a “climate of more violence.”

    She again inflamed tensions during Tuesday’s press conference. When asked how she intended to implement a national truce, she said attempts for dialogue with representatives in the region of Puno had not been successful. “We have to protect the life and tranquillity of 33 million Peruvians. Puno is not Peru,” she said. At least 20 civilians have died in clashes in the region, according to data by Peru’s Ombudsman office, and the comment led to an immediate online backlash.

    The presidential office later apologized for the statement on Twitter, saying Boluarte’s words were misinterpreted, and that the president intended to emphasize that the safety of all Peruvians was important. “We apologize to the sisters and brothers of our beloved highland region,” it wrote.

    As the protests show no end in sight, Boluarte on Wednesday dialed down the inflammatory rhetoric when she spoke at a special meeting on the Peruvian crisis at the Organization of American States (OAS).

    She announced plans to investigate the alleged abuses by security forces against protesters, adding that while she respected the “legitimate right to peaceful protest, but it is also true that the state has the duty to ensure security and internal order.”

    The violence had caused around $1 billion in damages to the country, and affected 240,000 businesses, but she was “deeply pained” at the “loss of lives of many compatriots,” she said.

    Boluarte, again, appealed to her former base of voters, indigenous Peruvians. “You are the great force that we need to include to achieve development with equity,” she said. “Your contributions to national development needs to be valued as well as your strength.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jan. 6 Committee failed to hold social media companies to account for their role in the Capitol attack, staffers and witnesses say | CNN Business

    Jan. 6 Committee failed to hold social media companies to account for their role in the Capitol attack, staffers and witnesses say | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    “There might be someone getting shot tomorrow.”

    That was the warning from Twitter staff at an internal meeting on Jan. 5, 2021, the eve of the deadly attack on the US Capitol. It wasn’t the only stark warning Twitter management received ahead of the insurrection, according to two former Twitter employees who spoke to the House Jan. 6 Committee.

    But now these witnesses, along with some committee staff, are frustrated, saying the committee failed to adequately hold major social media companies to account for the role they played in the worst attack on the Capitol in 200 years.

    It was a “real missed opportunity,” Anika Collier Navaroli, a former Twitter employee turned whistleblower who gave evidence to the committee, told CNN in an interview last week. “I risked a lot to come forward and speak to the committee and to share the truth about these momentous occasions in history,” Navaroli said.

    CNN spoke to half a dozen people who interacted with and were familiar with the Jan. 6 Committee’s so-called “purple team” – a group that included staff with expertise in extremism and online misinformation. Some witnesses and staff said the committee pulled its punches when it came to Big Tech, failing to include critical parts of the team’s work in its final report. The discontent has poured into public view, with an unpublished draft of the team’s findings leaked and obtained by multiple news organizations, including CNN.

    One source familiar with the probe acknowledged that the committee obtained evidence that social media companies like Twitter largely ignored concerns that were raised internally prior to Jan. 6, but while those platforms should have done something at the time, the panel was limited in its ability to hold them accountable. A lawyer who worked on the committee said the panel did its job and focused on the unique and malign role of then-President Donald Trump in an unprecedented attack on American democracy. They also said the final report outlines structural issues across social media and society that need to be studied further.

    Disagreement about social media companies’ role in the Jan. 6 attack comes as 2023 looks to be a pivotal year for Silicon Valley firms in Washington, DC. Spurred in part by the release of Elon Musk’s so-called “Twitter Files,” House Republicans are set to investigate purported Big Tech censorship, particularly as it pertains to social media companies’ handling of a 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden and his laptop. Facebook parent company Meta’s high-stakes decision Wednesday to reinstate Trump on its platforms is also expected to stoke further scrutiny of tech companies’ influence in elections. At the Supreme Court, justices are set to rule this year on a case that could strip key protections afforded to tech companies moderating online speech.

    It isn’t just Navaroli who has taken issue with the committee’s findings. Three of the committee’s own staff members, part of the so-called purple team, published an article earlier this month, sharply criticizing the decisions made by social media companies in the lead up to the attack.

    The final report’s “emphasis on Trump meant important context was left on the cutting room floor,” they wrote.

    “Indeed, the lack of an official Committee report chapter or appendix dedicated exclusively to these matters does not mean our investigation exonerated social media companies for their failure to confront violent rhetoric,” they wrote.

    In wake of the decision, CNN has reviewed thousands of pages of deposition transcripts and other supporting documents the committee has publicly released that provide insight into Silicon Valley’s action and inaction in the critical period between Election Day 2020 and Jan. 6, 2021.

    Navaroli, who worked on Twitter’s safety policy team, told the committee she had repeatedly warned Twitter’s leadership in the lead-up to Jan. 6 about the dangers of not cracking down on what she said was violent rhetoric.

    Navaroli pointed to Trump’s infamous “stand back and stand by” message to the Proud Boys at the first 2020 presidential debate as one instance that incited more violent rhetoric on Twitter.

    Navaroli initially appeared before the committee as an anonymous whistleblower. Part of her testimony was played during the public committee hearings last summer, with her voice distorted to protect her identity. However, she later decided to go public, testifying before the committee for a second time, and speaking to The Washington Post.

    In an interview with CNN, Navaroli said she is speaking out now because she believes it is important for the “truth to be on the record.” She warned that without a full reckoning of social media’s role in the Capitol attack, political violence could once again ignite in the United States and elsewhere around the world, pointing to recent unrest in Brazil where supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro stormed the country’s top government offices.

    The final report from the Jan. 6 Committee stated, “Social media played a prominent role in amplifying erroneous claims of election fraud.”

    But a far more blistering assessment was laid out in an unpublished draft document prepared by committee staff that was obtained by several news organizations, including CNN. Its key findings included:

    • “Social media platforms delayed response to the rise of far-right extremism—and President Trump’s incitement of his supporters—helped to facilitate the attack on January 6th.”
    • “Fear of reprisal and accusations of censorship from the political right compromised policy, process, and decision-making.”
    • “Twitter failed to take actions that could have prevented the spread of incitement to violence after the election.”
    • “Facebook did not fail to grapple with election delegitimization after the election so much as it did not even try.”

    Tech companies would broadly dispute these findings and have repeatedly said they are working to keep their platforms safe.

    Twitter’s previous management repeatedly outlined steps it said it was taking to crack down on hateful and violent rhetoric on its platform prior to Jan. 6, 2021, but stressed it didn’t want to unnecessarily limit free expression. Under Musk’s leadership, Twitter no longer has a responsive communications team, and the company did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    Andy Stone, a spokesperson for Facebook parent company Meta, pointed to an earlier statement from the company where it said it was cooperating with the committee.

    Jacob Glick, an investigative counsel, conducted multiple depositions for the Jan. 6 Committee, including Navaroli's.

    Jacob Glick, an investigative counsel who conducted multiple depositions for the Jan. 6 Committee, including Navaroli’s, told CNN he believes the committee did its job to show “the American public the dangers posed by President Trump’s multilayered attack on our democracy.”

    He said the lack of awareness he believes tech companies have shown about their role in the attack was “stark.”

    “I don’t think social media companies recognize they were dealing with a sustained threat to American democracy,” he said.

    Glick, who now works at the Georgetown Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, said the purple team’s report had not been fact-checked, contains some errors, and should not have been leaked.

    Another source familiar with the committee’s work told CNN, “It couldn’t be clearer that Trump was at the center of this plot to overturn the election. Not everything staff worked on could fit into this extensive report and hearings, including some who wanted their work to be the center of the investigation.”

    How social media platforms write and enforce their rules has become a central and ongoing debate, raising the key question of what power the companies should wield when it comes to politicians like Trump.

    While some, including Navaroli, insist Trump repeatedly broke social media platforms’ rules by inciting violent rhetoric that should have resulted in his removal before Jan. 6, others including Musk and Twitter’s previous management, argue that what politicians say should be made available to as many people as possible so they can be held to account.

    Meta and Twitter have both reversed their bans on Trump.

    “We’re moving backwards and it’s concerning to me,” Navaroli said of the return of prominent election conspiracy theorists to major tech platforms. “History has taught us what happens when political speech on social media companies is allowed to fester unchecked.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FDA vaccine advisers vote to harmonize Covid-19 vaccines in the United States | CNN

    FDA vaccine advisers vote to harmonize Covid-19 vaccines in the United States | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A panel of independent experts that advises the US Food and Drug Administration on its vaccine decisions voted unanimously Thursday to update all Covid-19 vaccines so they contain the same ingredients as the two-strain shots that are now used as booster doses.

    The vote means young children and others who haven’t been vaccinated may soon be eligible to receive two-strain vaccines that more closely match the circulating viruses as their primary series.

    The FDA must sign off on the committee’s recommendation, which it is likely to do, before it goes into effect.

    Currently, the US offers two types of Covid-19 vaccines. The first shots people get – also called the primary series – contain a single set of instructions that teach the immune system to fight off the original version of the virus, which emerged in 2019.

    This index strain is no longer circulating. It was overrun months ago by an ever-evolving parade of new variants.

    Last year, in consultation with its advisers, the FDA decided that it was time to update the vaccines. These two-strain, or bivalent, shots contain two sets of instructions; one set reminds the immune system about the original version of the coronavirus, and the second set teaches the immune system to recognize and fight off Omicron’s BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants, which emerged in the US last year.

    People who have had their primary series – nearly 70% of all Americans – were advised to get the new two-strain booster late last year in an effort to upgrade their protection against the latest variants.

    The advisory committee heard testimony and data suggesting that the complexity of having two types of Covid-19 vaccines and schedules for different age groups may be one of the reasons for low vaccine uptake in the US.

    Currently, only about two-thirds of Americans have had the full primary series of shots. Only 15% of the population has gotten an updated bivalent booster.

    Data presented to the committee shows that Covid-19 hospitalizations have been rising for children under the age of 2 over the past year, as Omicron and its many subvariants have circulated. Only 5% of this age group, which is eligible for Covid-19 vaccination at 6 months of age, has been fully vaccinated. Ninety percent of children under the age of 4 are still unvaccinated.

    “The most concerning data point that I saw this whole day was that extremely low vaccination coverage in 6 months to 2 years of age and also 2 years to 4 years of age,” said Dr. Amanda Cohn, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders. “We have to do much, much better.”

    Cohn says that having a single vaccine against Covid-19 in the US for both primary and booster doses would go a long way toward making the process less complicated and would help get more children vaccinated.

    Others feel that convenience is important but also stressed that data supported the switch.

    “This isn’t only a convenience thing, to increase the number of people who are vaccinated, which I agree with my colleagues is extremely important for all the evidence that was related, but I also think moving towards the strains that are circulating is very important, so I would also say the science supports this move,” said Dr. Hayley Gans, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford University.

    Many others on the committee were similarly satisfied after seeing new data on the vaccine effectiveness of the bivalent boosters, which are cutting the risk of getting sick, being hospitalized or dying from a Covid-19 infection.

    “I’m totally convinced that the bivalent vaccine is beneficial as a primary series and as a booster series. Furthermore, the updated vaccine safety data are really encouraging so far,” said Dr. David Kim, director of the the US Department of Health and Human Services’ National Vaccine Program, in public discussion after the vote.

    Thursday’s vote is part of a larger plan by the FDA to simplify and improve the way Covid-19 vaccines are given in the US.

    The agency has proposed a plan to convene its vaccine advisers – called the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, or VRBPAC – each year in May or June to assess whether the instructions in the Covid-19 vaccines should be changed to more closely match circulating strains of the virus.

    The time frame was chosen to give manufacturers about three months to redesign their shots and get new doses to pharmacies in time for fall.

    “The object, of course – before anyone says anything – is not to chase variants. None of us think that’s realistic,” said Jerry Weir, director of the Division of Viral Products in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review.

    “But I think our experience so far, with the bivalent vaccines that we have, does indicate that we can continue to make improvements to the vaccine, and that would be the goal of these meetings,” Weir said.

    In discussions after the vote, committee members were supportive of this plan but pointed out many of the things we still don’t understand about Covid-19 and vaccination that are likely to complicate the task of updating the vaccines.

    For example, we now seem to have Covid-19 surges in the summer as well as the winter, noted Dr. Michael Nelson, an allergist and immunologist at the University of Virginia. Are the surges related? And if so, is fall the best time to being a vaccination campaign?

    The CDC’s Dr. Jefferson Jones said that with only three years of experience with the virus, it’s really too early to understand its seasonality.

    Other important questions related to the durability of the mRNA vaccines and whether other platforms might offer longer protection.

    “We can’t keep doing what we’re doing,” said Dr. Bruce Gellin, chief of global public health strategy at the Rockefeller Foundation. “It’s been articulated in every one of these meetings despite how good these vaccines are. We need better vaccines.”

    The committee also encouraged both government and industry scientists to provide a fuller picture of how vaccination and infection affect immunity.

    One of the main ways researchers measure the effectiveness of the vaccines is by looking at how much they increase front-line defenders called neutralizing antibodies.

    Neutralizing antibodies are like firefighters that rush to the scene of an infection to contain it and put it out. They’re great in a crisis, but they tend to diminish in numbers over time if they’re not needed. Other components of the immune system like B-cells and T-cells hang on to the memory of a virus and stand ready to respond if the body encounters it again.

    Scientists don’t understand much about how well Covid-19 vaccination boosts these responses and how long that protection lasts.

    Another puzzle will be how to pick the strains that are in the vaccines.

    The process of selecting strains for influenza vaccines is a global effort that relies on surveillance data from other countries. This works because influenza strains tend to become dominant and sweep around the world. But Covid-19 strains haven’t worked in quite the same way. Some that have driven large waves in other countries have barely made it into the US variant mix.

    “Going forward, it is still challenging. Variants don’t sweep across the world quite as uniform, like they seem to with influenza,” the FDA’s Weir said. “But our primary responsibility is what’s best for the US market, and that’s where our focus will be.”

    Eventually, the FDA hopes that Americans would be able to get an updated Covid-19 shot once a year, the same way they do for the flu. People who are unlikely to have an adequate response to a single dose of the vaccine – such as the elderly or those with a weakened immune system – may need more doses, as would people who are getting Covid-19 vaccines for the first time.

    At Thursday’s meeting, the advisory committee also heard more about a safety signal flagged by a government surveillance system called the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

    The CDC and the FDA reported January 13 that this system, which relies on health records from a network of large hospital systems in the US, had detected a potential safety issue with Pfizer’s bivalent boosters.

    In this database, people 65 and older who got a Pfizer bivalent booster were slightly more likely to have a stroke caused by a blood clot within three weeks of their vaccination than people who had gotten a bivalent booster but were 22 to 42 days after their shot.

    After a thorough review of other vaccine safety data in the US and in other countries that use Pfizer bivalent boosters, the agencies concluded that the stroke risk was probably a statistical fluke and said no changes to vaccination schedules were recommended.

    At Thursday’s meeting, Dr. Nicola Klein, a senior research scientist with Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, explained how they found the signal.

    The researchers compared people who’d gotten a vaccine within the past three weeks against people who were 22 to 42 days away from their shots because this helps eliminate bias in the data.

    When they looked to see how many people had strokes around the time of their vaccination, they found an imbalance in the data.

    Of 550,000 people over 65 who’d received a Pfizer bivalent booster, 130 had a stroke caused by a blood clot within three weeks of vaccination, compared with 92 people in the group farther out from their shots.

    The researchers spotted the signal the week of November 27, and it continued for about seven weeks. The signal has diminished over time, falling from an almost two-fold risk in November to a 47% risk in early January, Klein said. In the past few days, it hasn’t been showing up at all.

    Klein said they didn’t see the signal in any of the other age groups or with the group that got Moderna boosters. They also didn’t see a difference when they compared Pfizer-boosted seniors with those who were eligible for a bivalent booster but hadn’t gotten one.

    Further analyses have suggested that the signal might be happening not because people who are within three weeks of a Pfizer booster are having more strokes, but because people who are within 22 to 42 days of their Pfizer boosters are actually having fewer strokes.

    Overall, Klein said, they were seeing fewer strokes than expected in this population over that period of time, suggesting a statistical fluke.

    Another interesting thing that popped out of this data, however, was a possible association between strokes and high-dose flu vaccination. Seniors who got both shots on the same day and were within three weeks of those shots had twice the rate of stroke compared with those who were 22 to 42 days away from their shots.

    What’s more, Klein said, the researchers didn’t see the same association between stroke and time since vaccination in people who didn’t get their flu vaccine on the same day.

    The total number of strokes in the population of people who got flu shots and Covid-19 boosters on the same day is small, however, which makes the association a shaky one.

    “I don’t think that the evidence are sufficient to conclude that there’s an association there,” said Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office.

    Nonetheless, Richard Forshee, deputy director of the FDA’s Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, said the FDA is planning to look at these safety questions further using data collected by Medicare.

    The FDA confirmed that the agency is taking a closer look.

    “The purpose of the study is 1) to evaluate the preliminary ischemic stroke signal reported by CDC using an independent data set and more robust epidemiological methods; and 2) to evaluate whether there is an elevated risk of ischemic stroke with the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine if it is given on the same day as a high-dose or adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

    The FDA did not give a time frame for when these studies might have results.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Brett Kavanaugh Fast Facts | CNN

    Brett Kavanaugh Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

    Birth date: February 12, 1965

    Birth place: Washington, DC

    Birth name: Brett Michael Kavanaugh

    Father: Everett Edward Kavanaugh Jr., president of a trade association

    Mother: Martha Kavanaugh, teacher, prosecutor and judge

    Marriage: Ashley (Estes) Kavanaugh

    Children: Liza and Margaret

    Education: Yale College, B.A., 1987, graduated cum laude; Yale Law School, J.D., 1990

    Religion: Roman Catholic

    Regularly taught courses on separation of powers and on the Supreme Court at Harvard Law School.

    Kavanaugh finished the Boston Marathon in 2010 and in 2015.

    1990-1991 – Law clerk to Judge Walter Stapleton of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

    1991-1992 – Clerks for Judge Alex Kozinski of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    1992-1993 – Attorney with the Solicitor General’s Office at the Department of Justice.

    1993-1994 – Serves as law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy.

    1994-1997 and 1998 – Associate counsel for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s Whitewater investigation, which leads to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

    1997-1998 and 1999-2001 – Partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, DC.

    2001-2003 – Serves as associate counsel and then senior associate counsel to President George W. Bush.

    July 25, 2003 – Bush nominates Kavanaugh to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but the Senate doesn’t vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination for almost three years.

    July 2003-May 2006 – Serves as assistant and staff secretary to Bush.

    May 26, 2006 – The Senate confirms Kavanaugh to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 57-36.

    May 30, 2006 – Sworn in by Kennedy.

    July 9, 2018 – President Donald Trump announces Kavanaugh as his nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Kennedy’s retirement.

    September 4-7, 2018 – Confirmation hearings are held on Capitol Hill. A Senate Judiciary Committee vote is tentatively slated for the week of September 17.

    September 16, 2018 – The Washington Post publishes an article about a California psychology professor who accuses Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her when they were both teenagers at a house party during the early 1980s. Christine Blasey Ford says she initially sent a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein about the incident when Kavanaugh’s name was included on a shortlist for the Supreme Court. Ford tells the newspaper she initially did not want to go public but she decided to talk on the record because her letter to Feinstein had been leaked to the media. Kavanaugh denies that such an incident ever took place.

    September 23, 2018 – The New Yorker magazine publishes a report about a second allegation of sexual misconduct, prompting Feinstein to call for a postponement of confirmation proceedings. The magazine article centers on a college classmate from Yale, Deborah Ramirez who says Kavanaugh exposed himself to her while a group of students were drinking at a party in a dorm during the 1983-1984 academic year. Kavanaugh denies the allegation and a White House spokeswoman dismisses the claim as uncorroborated.

    September 27, 2018 – Kavanaugh and Ford testify during an all-day hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    September 28, 2018 – GOP Senator Jeff Flake, a member of the Judiciary Committee, agrees to vote yes, paving the way to a floor vote but he says the FBI should reopen its background investigation of Kavanaugh and spend a week looking into claims made by Kavanaugh’s accusers. Trump later agrees to direct the FBI to reopen its background check but the probe will be limited in scope and must be completed in a week.

    October 3, 2018 – The FBI completes its supplemental background check and sends the information to the Senate late in the day.

    October 4, 2018 – The Wall Street Journal publishes an op-ed by Kavanaugh in which argues that he is an independent, impartial judge. He expresses regret for a few of his statements during the September 27 hearing, explaining that he was frustrated and emotional. He pledges, going forward, that litigants and colleagues will be treated with respect. The same day, retired Justice John Paul Stevens says that Kavanaugh’s comments during his confirmation hearings suggest bias. Stevens says Kavanaugh should not serve on the Supreme Court.

    October 6, 2018 – The Senate confirms Kavanaugh with a 50-48 vote. He is sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts during a private ceremony. The vote takes place amid public protests for and against Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

    September 14, 2019 – The New York Times publishes an article adapted from a forthcoming book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh” that contains a new allegation of college sexual misconduct. According to the report, the FBI did not investigate the new allegation and the bureau did not speak with witnesses to verify Ramirez’s original claim.

    July 2020 An exclusive CNN report says Kavanaugh urged his colleagues in a series of private memos this spring to consider avoiding decisions in major disputes over abortion and Democratic subpoenas for Trump’s financial records, according to multiple sources familiar with the inner workings of the court.

    October 28, 2020Kavanaugh tweaks a line in his controversial opinion on Wisconsin mail-in voting, after he received criticism for incorrectly saying Vermont had not changed its election rules due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

    July 22, 2021 – Senator Sheldon Whitehouse releases a letter from the FBI disclosing that it received more than 4,500 tips on a phone line in 2018 as part of a background investigation Kavanaugh and provided “relevant” ones to former President Trump’s White House counsel.

    October 1, 2021 – The Supreme Court announces that Kavanaugh has tested positive for Covid-19. This is the first publicly known case of coronavirus among the high court’s justices. Kavanaugh was fully vaccinated, according to the court.

    June 8, 2022 – Nicholas John Roske is arrested near Kavanaugh’s house, after calling emergency authorities to say he was having suicidal thoughts, had a firearm in his suitcase, and had traveled from California “to kill a specific US Supreme Court Justice.” The Justice Department charges him with attempting to kidnap or murder a US judge.

    January 20, 2023 – “Justice,” a documentary examining the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, premieres at the Sundance Film Festival.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CNN Exclusive: Pence classified documents included briefing memos for foreign trips | CNN Politics

    CNN Exclusive: Pence classified documents included briefing memos for foreign trips | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The roughly 12 classified documents found at the Indiana home of former Vice President Mike Pence included materials described as background briefing memos that were prepared for Pence’s foreign trips, multiple sources told CNN.

    One source said some of those classified documents were likely used to prepare Pence for foreign meetings while he was vice president and may have been overlooked during the packing process because they were tucked into old trip binders.

    According to another source, the classified briefing materials would not have been visible unless the packers went through the binders page by page.

    It is not unusual for presidents and vice presidents to be given travel briefing binders that include background memos on people they are meeting with in foreign countries. The sources who spoke to CNN said they sometimes include basic biographical information on foreign leaders, but sometimes also include more sensitive information.

    The FBI is working with US intelligence agencies to assess the documents, a process which involves determining how recent the information is, its level of classification and potential risks of having classified material stored in an unauthorized location, according to a US official.

    One source who was briefed on some of the classified documents told CNN that, based on what they were told, there was nothing particularly unusual in the papers, and described the classification markings as on the “lower level.” There was no mention of documents with SCI or SAP markings, two designations of some of the most sensitive classified material, the source said.

    Top secret, the highest level of classification, can include a subset of documents known as SCI, or sensitive compartmented information, which is reserved for certain information derived from intelligence sources. Access to an SCI document can be even further restricted to a smaller group of people with specific security clearances.

    Another category of sensitive information within either Top Secret or Secret classification is known as an SAP, or special access program, which requires additional safeguards. Not everyone with a Top Secret security clearance may have access to information in an SAP.

    CNN reported earlier this month that the classified materials discovered at President Joe Biden’s former private office in Washington included US intelligence memos and briefing materials from Biden’s time as vice president covering Ukraine, Iran and the United Kingdom.

    The materials found at Biden’s former office included some documents marked top secret with an SCI designation, CNN previously reported.

    More than 300 classified documents have been discovered at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, both in boxes Trump’s aides turned over to the National Archives and material later found by the FBI. The FBI’s August search included 18 documents marked top secret, 54 documents marked secret and 31 documents marked confidential, according to court filings.

    One set of classified documents retrieved by the FBI in August included SCI markings, according to the property receipt released in court filings.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chinese engineer sentenced to 8 years in US prison for spying | CNN Politics

    Chinese engineer sentenced to 8 years in US prison for spying | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A former graduate student in Chicago was sentenced to eight years in prison Wednesday for spying for the Chinese government by gathering information on engineers and scientists in the United States.

    Ji Chaoqun, a Chinese national who came to the US to study electrical engineering at the Illinois Institute of Technology in 2013 and later enlisted in the US Army Reserves, was arrested in 2018.

    The 31-year-old was convicted last September of acting illegally as an agent of China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) and of making a material false statement to the US Army.

    According to the Justice Department, Ji was tasked with providing an intelligence officer with biographical information on individuals for potential recruitment as Chinese spies. The individuals included Chinese nationals who were working as engineers and scientists in the US, some of whom worked for American defense contractors.

    Ji’s spying was part of an effort by Chinese intelligence to obtain access to advanced aerospace and satellite technologies being developed by US companies, the Justice Department said in a statement.

    In 2016, a year after graduation, Ji enlisted in the US Army Reserves under a program in which foreign nationals can be recruited if their skills are considered “vital to the national interest.”

    In his application to join the program, Ji falsely stated that he had not had any contact with a foreign government within the past seven years. He also failed to disclose his relationship and contacts with Chinese intelligence officers in a subsequent interview with a US Army officer, according to the Justice Department.

    In 2018, Ji had several meetings with an undercover US law enforcement agent who was posing as a representative of China’s MSS. During these meetings, Ji said that with his military identification, he could visit and take photos of “Roosevelt-class” aircraft carriers. Ji also explained that once he obtained his US citizenship and security clearance through the Army Reserves program, he would seek a job at the CIA, FBI or NASA, the Justice Department said, citing evidence at trial.

    Ji intended to perform cybersecurity work at one of those agencies so that he would have access to databases, including those that contained scientific research, the Justice Department said in the statement.

    Ji was working at the direction of Xu Yanjun, a deputy division director at the Jiangsu provincial branch of the MMS, the statement said.

    Xu, a career intelligence officer, was sentenced last year to 20 years in prison for plotting to steal trade secrets from several US aviation and aerospace companies. Xu was also the first Chinese spy extradited to the US for trial, after being detained in Belgium in 2018 following an FBI investigation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link