ReportWire

Tag: government organizations – us

  • Beware deepfake reality as Trump dominates headlines | CNN Politics

    Beware deepfake reality as Trump dominates headlines | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    After earlier and incorrectly predicting his own arrest this week, former President Donald Trump veered into the more sinister business of predicting violence and catastrophe if he’s arrested.

    Whether the prediction turns into reality is another thing entirely.

    Trump’s reemergence into the headlines, as both a third-time presidential candidate and a potential defendant, is threatening to pull the country back into his reality. Trump has not been formally charged with any crime and denies all wrongdoing.

    Compare the lived reality where people interact, mostly in peace, and go about their lives with the Trump-centered, fake world available on social media.

    In the real world, Trump hasn’t been charged with anything. On Twitter, fake photos of his arrest generated by artificial intelligence have been viewed millions of times.

    In the real world, prosecutors have to form a methodical criminal case before they indict a defendant. On social media, Trump says everything is part of a plot against him.

    Positing the idea of violent retribution into the echo chamber of his Truth Social platform early Friday, Trump said it is “known that potential death & destruction” that would be “catastrophic for our Country” would result if a charge is brought against him.

    In a post Thursday, Trump went into all caps – the typographical equivalent of screaming – to declare his innocence and add, “OUR COUNTRY IS BEING DESTROYED, AS THEY TELL US TO BE PEACEFUL.”

    The veiled threats place a new form of pressure on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who has already been threatened by Republicans in Congress with an investigation. Without naming Bragg in the Friday post, Trump said anyone who would charge him with a crime is “a degenerate psychopath that truely (sic) hates the USA!”

    CNN’s Brynn Gingras and Kara Scannell reported Friday that Bragg’s office received a package containing a white powder substance and a threatening note. They added that while authorities determined there was no dangerous substance, the package capped off a week where law enforcement has seen continual threats against the court, including several bomb threats, all of which turned out to be unfounded.

    Meanwhile, rather than condemn Trump’s latest post, top Republicans in Washington like House Speaker Kevin McCarthy refused to answer questions about it.

    The photos of Trump being arrested were created in jest by Eliot Higgins, founder of the investigative journalism group Bellingcat, who asked an AI art generator to make a photo of “Donald Trump falling down while being arrested,” according to The Washington Post.

    “I was just mucking about,” Higgins told the Post. “I thought maybe five people would retweet it.”

    Bellingcat, ironically, uses social media posts and other digital data to prove facts, uncovering crimes and investigating atrocities. CNN worked with Bellingcat, for instance, to uncover the Russian operatives who apparently tried to poison the now-jailed dissident leader Alexey Navalny. The group has also used social media to track down apparent war crimes in Ukraine.

    The fake photos, while requiring a double take, were clearly not real. But it is that first impression that can be misleading – and lasting. They fed Trump’s narrative of persecution, a visual manifestation of the drama he puts into his posts.

    There’s more and more of this online, and it’s getting harder and harder to tell fiction from reality.

    Earlier this month, CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan had an incredible video report on the power of AI-generated audio. In addition to magically mimicking Anderson Cooper, he used an AI generator to call his parents. The computer sounded like his voice, but it was not O’Sullivan talking. While his mother later said O’Sullivan’s Irish accent felt off during the conversation, she did not catch it in real time.

    “When we enter this world where anything can be fake – any image, any audio, any video, any piece of text, nothing has to be real – we have what’s called the liar’s dividend, which is anybody can deny reality,” Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Information, told O’Sullivan.

    There are many examples of deepfake photos and videos if not tricking people, then certainly causing harm – such as women whose faces have been deepfaked, without their consent, onto pornography.

    When something is repeated enough online or when a fake narrative takes hold, it can influence the real world. That’s certainly what happened on January 6, 2021, when conspiracy theories that blossomed online turned into an attack on the Capitol.

    “There is no online and offline world; there’s one world, and it’s fully integrated,” Farid told O’Sullivan with regard to the potential for AI to create a false reality online that bleeds into the real world.

    “When things happen on the internet, they have real implications for individuals, for communities, for societies, for democracies, and I don’t think we as a field have fully come to grips with our responsibility here,” he said.

    It’s something to be very careful of as we look at what could be a historic period in which a former president, current candidate, serial conspiracy theorist and master of social media potentially faces criminal charges.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ron DeSantis is targeting the free speech protections that might save Fox News | CNN Politics

    Ron DeSantis is targeting the free speech protections that might save Fox News | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    As Fox News faces legal peril over its coverage of Donald Trump’s 2020 election lies, one of its most featured Republicans, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, is trying to gut the free speech protections that may ultimately save the network from financial ruin.

    DeSantis and his GOP allies in the state legislature have proposed a sweeping overhaul to defamation laws here that would make it far easier to sue news organizations in Florida. The legislation, fashioned to punish media outlets over their coverage of conservatives, would turn the state into a battleground over the future of the First Amendment.

    But in doing so, DeSantis has sparked warnings from the right that his attempts to target the mainstream media will result in headaches for conservative outlets as well. Among the most vulnerable, opponents have said, could be the media organizations that have done the most to promote DeSantis amid his ascent in the GOP.

    “I understand the emotion behind this bill, but you cannot legislate on emotion and this bill is a sword that will cut both ways,” said Trey Radel, a former Republican colleague of DeSantis in the US House who hosts a weeknight radio show on a Florida Fox News affiliate. “This bill has the potential to stifle, if not shut down, center right media and conservative talk radio.”

    The legislation as introduced takes direct aim at the landmark US Supreme Court ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which created a higher barrier for public figures to sue for defamation. The decision has been a bedrock of US media law since the case was decided in 1964, protecting news outlets from expensive lawsuits for mistakes made during the course of reporting by requiring plaintiffs to prove the reporter or outlet demonstrated “actual malice” when publishing erroneous information about a public figure.

    Fox News has leaned heavily on the ruling in defending itself from Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit. Dominion in its lawsuit has alleged Fox “recklessly disregarded the truth” during its 2020 presidential election coverage by pushing various pro-Trump conspiracies about the company’s voting technology.

    Fox attorneys cited New York Times v. Sullivan five times in its March 7 court filing asking for a summary judgment. In public statements, the network has repeatedly insisted it is protected by the precedent set in that case.

    “Despite the noise and confusion generated by Dominion and their opportunistic private equity owners, the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan,” Fox News Media said in one such recent statement.

    But if Florida Republicans get their way, those protections would be eroded. House Speaker Paul Renner acknowledged last week that the bill his chamber is considering “is designed to challenge current constitutional law” and “tee up a court case.” The push comes as two of the Supreme Court’s more conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have openly expressed a willingness to revisit the high court’s ruling in Sullivan, with Thomas calling the court’s libel precedent “policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.”

    DeSantis has for years quietly eyed going after the media’s First Amendment protections, first floating legislation targeting libel laws in December 2021, according to emails obtained by CNN. Stephanie Kopelousos, the governor’s director of legislative affairs, sent draft bill language to the office of the state Senate president, though it was not filed for the 2022 legislative session.

    His intentions became public last month at an unusually staged event during which DeSantis, seated behind a studio desk like a news anchor with “TRUTH” emblazoned on a screen behind him, signaled his willingness to turn Florida into a test case to challenge Sullivan.

    “It’s our view in Florida that we want to be standing up for the little guy against some of these massive media conglomerates,” DeSantis said.

    But that was several weeks before Dominion unleashed a trove of embarrassing text messages and testimony from Fox executives and personalities that suggested they knowingly aired Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election.

    Adding to the intrigue is the lengths to which the conservative network and others owned by Rupert Murdoch, have gone to promote DeSantis ahead of his likely bid for president. In between regular appearances on Fox programming, DeSantis in recent weeks has played catch with “Fox & Friends’” Brian Kilmeade, sat down with TalkTV’s Piers Morgan in the governor’s mansion, toured his hometown with the New York Post’s Salena Zito and granted a rare newspaper interview to David Charter of the Times of London – all reporters who work in Murdoch’s media empire. The New York Post declared the Republican governor “DeFUTURE” after his resounding reelection victory in November.

    Fox News declined to comment. But the Wall Street Journal, another Murdoch-owned outlet, recently published an op-ed by Trump’s former Attorney General Bill Barr criticizing other media outlets for their “gleeful” coverage of Fox’s “setback” instead of standing up for the protections created by Sullivan. In a plea that seemed aimed at DeSantis’ efforts, Barr urged conservatives with power not to attempt to weaken libel laws.

    “For the foreseeable future, we will likely be on the wrong side of the culture-setting consensus,” he wrote. “There are precious few conservative news outlets as it is. Why make them more vulnerable to the multitude of left-wing plaintiffs’ lawyers?”

    Republican state Rep. Alex Andrade, the sponsor of the Florida House bill, said he would “take Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch over Bill Barr every day of the week.” Andrade contended that libel laws have become so one-sided, “If you’ve been egregiously defamed by a media outlet, in 2023 you have almost no opportunity for actual recourse.”

    Andrade said he planned to tweak the bill to address some of the blowback before its next committee stop, but otherwise intended to charge ahead. The bill’s next vote is not yet scheduled.

    “The majority of the concerns are not based in reality,” Andrade said.

    Under the Florida bill, the definition of a public figure is narrowed significantly and it puts more onus on an individual to verify a defamatory allegation before publishing. Editing video in a misleading way could be considered defamation in this bill. It also allows someone to sue wherever the material is accessed – in today’s digital world, that could be anywhere in the state – which opponents say will lead to “venue shopping” for favorable judges. Courts must assume any statement made by an anonymous source is false, the bill says, which free speech advocates say would have a chilling effect on whistleblowers.

    The bill, which was also introduced in the state Senate with some modifications, has attracted an astounding array of opponents that cross the political spectrum. At a House committee hearing last week, the conservative Americans for Prosperity and the more progressive American Civil Liberties Union both testified against it. Brendon Leslie, the founder of the Florida Voice, a DeSantis-friendly conservative media outlet, warned on Twitter that progressive donors would flood conservative media with lawsuits if the bill became law. Bobby Block, executive director of the Florida First Amendment Foundation, called the bill a “blunt instrument” that has made commentary-heavy evangelical and conservative broadcast stations “incredibly nervous.” US Rep. Cory Mills, a Republican from Central Florida, wrote in a letter to state GOP legislative leaders that he was “gravely concerned that (the bills) violate free speech rights.”

    Though Sullivan is primarily known for protecting news organizations, the bill could make it easier to sue local bloggers, people who post web comments and other online speakers, opponents have warned.

    “It doesn’t just hurt … what’s been referred to as the legacy media,” said Carol LoCicero, a lawyer who has represented The Villages Daily Sun, a newspaper published by the conservative owners of The Villages retirement community. “It hurts people from all points of view. It hurts individuals. Frankly, it will hurt politicians as they’re campaigning for office and making statements about their opponents.”

    DeSantis, though, is so far undeterred. He told reporters last week that he didn’t think the bill would “cause much of a difference in terms of free speech.”

    “I do think it may cause some people to not want to put out things that are false, that are that are smearing somebody’s reputation,” he said.

    Legal experts are skeptical that the bill will be upheld even if it passes. Other Supreme Court justices have so far not shown the same enthusiasm as Thomas and Gorsuch for reviewing its precedent in Sullivan. Dave Heller, deputy director of the Media Law Resource Center, said the proposed legislation is “breathtaking in its hostility toward a free press” and Mark Lerner, an attorney who represented Newsmax in a libel dispute, called the measure “unconstitutional” and said its proponents “who think they’re championing conservative voices may be surprised that it chills them.”

    Radel, the former congressman and radio host, said conservative outlets might not survive the legal costs they could face while legal challenges move through the court system.

    “That type of scorched earth policy is going to destroy conservative talk in Florida in the meantime,” he said. “I work for a privately owned broadcasting group that will not be able to afford a barrage of lawsuits before we wait for it to go before the Supreme Court.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Appeals court can rule at any time in dispute over suspending FDA approval of medication abortion drug | CNN Politics

    Appeals court can rule at any time in dispute over suspending FDA approval of medication abortion drug | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Justice Department and a manufacturer of abortion pills have submitted the final round of court briefs in the emergency dispute over whether an appeals court should freeze a judge’s ruling that would suspend the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of medication abortion drugs.

    Now that the filings have been submitted, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Court could rule at any time on whether to put a hold on the order from US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.

    Kacsmaryk on Friday night said he was halting the FDA’s approval of the drug mifepristone but that he was delaying the order by seven days to give the pill’s defenders time to appeal the case. The Justice Department has asked the appeals court to act by 12 p.m. CT Thursday on its request that Kacsmaryk’s ruling be paused, to give the government time to seek a Supreme Court intervention if need be. The 5th Circuit is not obligated to meet that deadline.

    The Justice Department wrote in its new filing that Kacsmaryk purported “to be acting in a restrained manner … but there is nothing modest about upending the decades-long status quo by blocking access nationwide to a safe and effective drug.”

    “Effectively requiring Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro to cease distribution of mifepristone after more than two decades would upend the status quo, severely harming women, healthcare systems, and the public,” the Justice Department said, referring to the two US manufacturers of mifepristone.

    The Justice Department filing pushed back on the assertions by the challengers, made in their filing overnight in the emergency dispute, that the 5th Circuit did not have the authority to hear the appeal of Kacsmaryk’s ruling. The Justice Department also called out Kacsmaryk and the challengers for relying on anonymous blog posts to claim mifepristone is unsafe.

    Danco Labroratories, which intervened in the case to defend mifepristone’s approval, wrote in its new filing with the appeals court that if the ruling is not frozen, “women across the nation will face serious, unnecessary health risks from the elimination of access to a drug FDA has repeatedly deemed safe and effective and that is the standard of care.”

    In an overnight filing, the anti-abortion doctors who sued to ban medication abortion drugs told a federal appeals court that it should leave in place the ruling that will halt the drug’s FDA approval.

    The anti-abortion doctors defended Kacsmaryk’s ruling called it a “meticulously considered” ruling that “paints an alarming picture of decades-long agency lawlessness – all to the detriment of the women and girls FDA is charged to protect.”

    Mifepristone has been approved by the FDA for terminating pregnancies for nearly 23 years. Leading medical associations have rebuked the claims by the approval’s legal challengers and by the judge that the drug is unsafe.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gaming the government is not going well | CNN Politics

    Gaming the government is not going well | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Governing is not, or at least it shouldn’t be, some kind of game.

    But this week it feels like powerful people are treating it like one, running trick plays to score points, trash talking and making threats, and exploiting rules to bring things to a halt.

    In Florida, a brewing grudge match pits Disney, one of the state’s largest employers, against its governor, the ambitious Republican Ron DeSantis who is eyeing a presidential run.

    How the state government’s relationship with its notable corporate citizen turned petty is getting hard to follow.

    The basic storyline, as laid out by CNN’s Steve Contorno, is that Disney spoke out against a law DeSantis pushed to limit what teachers can say in the classroom. Faulting its “woke” corporate behavior, DeSantis and Republicans in the state moved to install their political allies onto a quasi-government board that oversees the area that includes Disney World. But the company moved to defang the board before the new appointees took on their roles.

    Rather than sending a message to Disney, DeSantis now looks outmaneuvered and is threatening more action against the company.

    It’s not clear if he’s serious or not, but the most bizarre idea he suggested is building a state prison on public land next to the Magic Kingdom. Watch him here.

    The appearance of a Republican potentially trying to sabotage a massive employer is the kind of play DeSantis’ potential rivals for the Republican presidential nomination are happy to point out.

    “I think it rightfully makes a lot of people question his judgment and his maturity,” former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Tuesday in a conversation with the website Semafor.

    Christie said if DeSantis “can’t see around a corner that (Disney CEO) Bob Iger created for you,” then “that’s not the guy I want sitting across from President Xi and negotiating our next agreement with China.”

    In Washington, where the Senate rulebook has been befuddling people for centuries, Republicans are citing the Senate rules and making clear they won’t let Democrats replace, even temporarily, the ailing Sen. Dianne Feinstein on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Feinstein, 89, has been out of the office since early March while dealing with a case of the shingles. But since Democrats only have a one-seat majority on the panel, her absence has ground judicial nominations to a halt.

    For a rules-minded guy like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, another octogenarian just returning from his own month-plus convalescence after a fall, there’s no need to let Democrats get another vote on the committee and push through scores of nominations caught in limbo. McConnell suggested if Democrats culled the herd of nominees, they might get some confirmed.

    “They could move a number of less controversial nominees right now. Right now,” he said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “They want to sideline Senator Feinstein, so they can ram through the worst four as well.”

    Various Senate rules have been confusing people for centuries. Even if Feinstein were to resign, Sen. Mitt Romney suggested Tuesday that Republicans could block changes to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    “I don’t think Republicans are going to lift a finger in any way to get more liberal judges appointed, so whether she’s resigned or leaves temporarily from the judiciary committee, I think we will slow walk any process that makes it easier to appoint more liberal judges,” Romney said.

    Feinstein’s absence isn’t the only problem, as CNN’s Tierney Sneed and Lauren Fox have pointed out, since Republican senators can also use the “blue slip” tradition to veto judicial nominees the Biden administration has put forward for their states.

    If the importance of judicial nominees is still in question, look no further than the furor that a Trump-appointed federal judge has caused by ruling to suspend the 23-year-old FDA authorization for mifepristone, the first drug used in a medication abortion.

    The decision by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk out of the federal court in Amarillo, Texas, has sent the abortion issue straight back to the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule by Wednesday in a case that could remove nationwide access to a medication that American women have been using for decades, even in states that have sought to protect abortion rights.

    Kacsmaryk was all but selected by opponents of the drug to hear the case since he is the only federal district judge in Amarillo.

    It’s not the rulebook, but rather the teamwork making House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s life difficult. He wanted to send a message of unity to Wall Street with a speech there Monday. His goal was to calm nerves about the looming debt ceiling showdown and project that Republicans have a plan to raise the debt ceiling and impose spending cuts. Their plan probably won’t get any support from Democrats.

    But almost on cue Tuesday, conservative Republicans began to poke holes in McCarthy’s plan, calling it into question as the US hurtles toward a potential default if there is no debt ceiling agreement by June. McCarthy, at least for now, seems disinclined to allow a vote on any proposal that could get support from Democrats in the House. And he seems unable to find a proposal that can get all Republicans on board. Those Senate rules make it impossible for anything to pass through that chamber without support from ten Republicans, so long as Feinstein is not voting. Read more from CNN’s Stephen Collinson.

    Suffice it to say the debt ceiling, the abortion medication and Disney’s status in Florida are issues where there’s not a winner and a loser, even if they’re being treated that way by the powerful people who are supposed to be in charge.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump lawyers rail against DOJ in letter, reveal foreign leader briefings may be among classified documents taken from White House | CNN Politics

    Trump lawyers rail against DOJ in letter, reveal foreign leader briefings may be among classified documents taken from White House | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Two of Donald Trump’s defense lawyers now believe that classified briefings of phone calls with foreign leaders were among “all manner of documents” in 15 boxes that Trump returned to the National Archives a year after he left the presidency, according to a new letter his lawyers sent to Congress.

    This organization of the materials “indicates that the White House staff simply swept all documents from the President’s desk and other areas into boxes, where they have resided ever since,” the two lawyers, Timothy Parlatore and Jim Trusty, wrote to the GOP chair of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

    Their characterization not only reveals new details about the documents but also comes as part of a broadside against the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump over the classified documents that lays out talking points for Republicans as they try to portray the ongoing probe as politically motivated.

    The lawyers urge Congress to tell the Justice Department to “stand down,” even as special counsel Jack Smith’s probe has shown signs of nearing its end and even though Congress doesn’t have the power to control DOJ criminal investigations.

    Parlatore and Trusty say they reviewed the 15 boxes earlier this year that are now part of the Justice Department’s investigation. They saw placeholder pages where classified documents were removed by the National Archives, according to the letter.

    “The vast majority of the placeholder inserts refer to briefings for phone calls with foreign leaders that were located near the schedule for those calls,” the lawyers wrote.

    The 15 boxes were turned over to the Archives in January 2022. The FBI seized more boxes in August 2022 during a court-authorized search that found more than 100 classified documents, including 18 at the highest “top secret” classification level. Trump’s own legal team later found more classified materials in a search other locations.

    The Justice Department has never said exactly what was in the classified material found in Trump’s possession after the presidency. Trump’s lawyers say in their letter that the Justice Department has refused to tell them whether any of the documents remain classified.

    It’s not clear why at this point in the special counsel’s investigation that the Trump legal team was given access to the boxes turned over to the National Archives to look through them.

    Wednesday’s letter was sent to House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner, and it represents Trump’s legal team seeking a political lifeline by asking Congress tell the Justice Department to step aside because they believe the intelligence community should conduct the investigation into what happened with the classified documents.

    “DOJ should be ordered to stand down, and the intelligence community should instead conduct an appropriate investigation and provide a full report to this Committee, as well as your counterparts in the Senate,” the lawyers wrote to Turner.

    “This is indicative of the staff’s packing processes and not any criminal intent by President Trump,” the lawyers argued.

    The lawyers also pointed to classified documents since discovered at the residences and offices of President Joe Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence.

    “As demonstrated by the discovery of documents with classification markings in the homes of President Trump, President Biden, and Vice President Pence, deficient document handling and storage procedures are not limited to any individual, administration, or political party,” the lawyers wrote.

    The intelligence community said in August following the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago that it was conducting its own damage assessment of the classified documents that had been retrieved.

    Earlier this month, intelligence leaders in Congress were provided access to some of the classified documents that had been taken from the residences and offices of Trump, Biden and Pence so that Congress could do its own review.

    Trump’s legal team sent Wednesday’s letter to Turner and copied other intelligence leaders in Congress, including the Democratic-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. Trump’s allies have for years assailed the various probes into the former president, yet even his former attorney general, William Barr, has said the classified documents investigation puts the former president in serious legal jeopardy.

    In a February interview with CNN, Parlatore signaled Trump’s legal strategy, saying that DOJ should be “benched” on matters related to classified material and it should be left up to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to conduct an administrative review of the White House’s procedure for handling such documents at the end of each presidency.

    In Wednesday’s letter, Trump’s lawyers criticized the Justice Department’s handling of the case before the search of Mar-a-Lago, arguing that federal investigators put Trump on the defensive by issuing a grand jury subpoena instead of working cooperatively with Trump.

    The letter also tried to defend a certification made by one of Trump’s attorneys last year following the subpoena. In June 2022, the lawyer, Christina Bobb, signed a certification that Trump had complied with the subpoena by turning over the classified documents in his possession.

    “Ultimately, President Trump’s legal team complied with DOJ’s demands, performing as diligent a search as they could by Mr. (Jay) Bratt’s arbitrary deadline, and submitted a certification that affirmed the same,” the lawyers wrote in Wednesday’s letter.

    “To be clear, the certification stated that a diligent search was conducted, and all responsive documents found were provided — not that the search turned up all possible materials, as many media outlets have falsely characterized the certification as saying,” they added.

    The certification that Bobb signed, however, states that “any and all responsive documents accompany this certification.” Trump did not, however, turn over all classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

    Bobb has since testified to the grand jury, and another attorney who worked on the draft response to the subpoena, Evan Corcoran, was recently forced to testify to the federal grand jury about the response and other discussions with Trump, after prosecutors believed Trump used his attorney to advance a crime.

    Wednesday’s letter also did not note that the FBI’s August 2022 search warrant came after federal investigators were told that Trump directed the movement of boxes from a basement storage room to his residence at Mar-a-Lago following receipt of the subpoena.

    This story has been updated to reflect additional lawmakers copied on the letter from Trump’s lawyers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 5 ways a debt default could affect you | CNN Politics

    5 ways a debt default could affect you | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden and House Republicans may have as little as a month to prevent the US from defaulting on its debt, which would impact millions of Americans and unleash economic and fiscal chaos here and around the world.

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned Monday that the government may not be able to pay all of its bills in full and on time as soon as June 1. However, the forecast was uncertain, and the default date might come several weeks later, she said. The US hit its $31.4 trillion debt ceiling in January, and Treasury has been using cash and “extraordinary measures” to satisfy obligations since then.

    Just what would happen if the nation defaults on its debt is unknown since it’s never actually happened before. A close call in 2011 roiled the financial markets and prompted Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the US’ credit rating to AA+ from AAA.

    Yellen gave a sense of the turmoil it would cause in her letter to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Monday.

    “If Congress fails to increase the debt limit, it would cause severe hardship to American families, harm our global leadership position, and raise questions about our ability to defend our national security interests,” she wrote.

    To be clear, a debt default doesn’t mean all payments would stop and people would permanently lose out on money they are owed. Treasury would have the funds to satisfy some obligations, but it’s not certain how the agency would handle the disbursements. Much would also depend on how long it takes Congress to address the borrowing cap.

    “Tens of millions of people across the country who expect payments from the federal government may not get them on time,” said Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

    Here are five ways that Americans could be affected by debt default:

    About 66 million retirees, disabled workers and others receive monthly Social Security benefits. The average payment for retired workers is $1,827 a month in 2023.

    Almost two-thirds of beneficiaries rely on Social Security for half of their income, and for 40% of recipients, the payments constitute at least 90% of their income, according to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

    These payments could be delayed in a debt default scenario, though it’s possible Treasury could continue making on-time payments because of the entitlement program’s trust fund, Akabas said.

    The benefits are disbursed four times a month, on the third day of the month and on three Wednesdays. Roughly $25 billion a week is sent out, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

    “Even a short delay in the payment of Social Security benefits would be a burden for the millions of Americans who rely on their earned benefits to pay for out-of-pocket health care expenses, food, rent and utilities,” Max Richtman, the committee’s CEO, said in a statement.

    Many other government payments could also be affected, including funding for food stamps; federal grants to states and municipalities for Medicaid, highways, education and other programs; and Medicare payments to hospitals, doctors and health insurance plans.

    More than 2 million federal civilian workers and around 1.4 million active-duty military members could see their paychecks delayed. Federal government contractors could also see a lag in payments, which could affect their ability to compensate their workers.

    Also, certain veterans benefits, including disability payments and pensions for some low-income veterans and their surviving families, could be affected.

    “Such calamity would place further stress on our servicemembers, retirees, and veterans, as well as their families, caregivers, and survivors,” Rene Campos, senior director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America, said in a blog post. “Though life in uniform is not always predictable, those who serve or have served their country expect their country to honor their commitment to service.”

    About $25 billion in pay or benefits for active-duty members of the military, civil service and military retirees, veterans and recipients of Supplemental Security Income is sent out on the first day of the month, according to the CBO.

    Americans’ investments would take a direct hit. Case in point: Markets had what was then their worst week since the financial crisis during the 2011 debt ceiling standoff after the Standard & Poor’s downgrade.

    Even if the debt ceiling impasse is resolved soon after a default, stocks could shed as much as a third of their value. That would wipe out around $12 trillion in household wealth, according to Moody’s Analytics.

    If a default occurs, yields on US Treasuries will inevitably rise to compensate for the increased risk that bondholders won’t receive the money they’re owed from the government.

    Since interest rates on loans, credit cards and mortgages are often based on Treasury yields, the cost of borrowing money and paying off debt would rise. That’s on top of the increased costs Americans are already facing from the Federal Reserve rate hikes.

    Families and businesses would also have a tougher time getting approved for lines of credit since banks would have to be more selective about to whom they loan money. That’s because their costs of borrowing money will also rise, which limits the amount of money they can lend out.

    A debt default could trigger an economic downturn, which would prompt a spike in unemployment. It would come at a particularly fragile time – when the nation is already dealing with rising interest rates and stubbornly high inflation.

    How much damage would be done would depend on how long the crisis continues. If the default lasts for about a week, then close to 1 million jobs would be lost, including in the financial sector, which would be hard hit by the stock market declines. Also, the unemployment rate would jump to about 5% and the economy would contract by nearly half a percent, according to Moody’s.

    But if the impasse dragged on for six weeks, then more than 7 million jobs would be lost, the unemployment rate would soar above 8% and the economy would decline by more than 4%, according to Moody’s. The effects would still be felt a decade from now.

    “It would be a body blow to the economy, and it would be a manufactured crisis,” said Bernard Yaros, an economist at Moody’s.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Meta got caught in tensions between the US and EU | CNN Business

    How Meta got caught in tensions between the US and EU | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Facebook-parent Meta has perhaps become the most high-profile casualty of a long-running privacy dispute between Europe and the United States — but it may not be the last.

    Meta has been fined a record-breaking €1.2 billion ($1.3 billion) by European Union regulators for violating EU privacy laws by transferring the personal data of Facebook users to servers in the United States. Meta said Monday it would appeal the ruling, including the fine.

    The historic fine against Meta — and a potentially game-changing legal order that could force Meta to stop transferring EU users’ data to the United States — isn’t just a one-off decision limited to this one company or its individual business practices. It reflects bigger, unresolved tensions between Europe and the United States over data privacy, government surveillance and regulation of internet platforms.

    Those underlying and fundamental disagreements, which have simmered for years, have now come to a head, casting a significant shadow over thousands of businesses that depend on processing EU data in the United States.

    Beyond its huge economic implications, however, the fine has once again highlighted Europe’s deep mistrust of US surveillance powers — right as the US government is trying to build its own case against foreign-linked apps such as TikTok over similar surveillance concerns.

    The origins of Meta’s fine this week trace back to a 2020 ruling by Europe’s top court.

    In that decision, the European Court of Justice struck down a complex transatlantic framework Meta and many other companies had been relying on until then to legally move EU user data to US servers in the ordinary course of running their businesses.

    That framework, known as Privacy Shield, was itself the outgrowth of European complaints that US authorities didn’t do enough to protect the privacy of EU citizens. At the time Privacy Shield was created, the world was still reeling from disclosures made by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden. His disclosures highlighted the vast reach of US surveillance programs such as PRISM, which allowed the NSA to snoop on the electronic communications of foreign nationals as they used tech tools built by Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, among others.

    PRISM relied on a basic fact of internet architecture: Much of the world’s online communications take place on US-based platforms that route their data through US servers, with few legal protections or recourse for either foreigners or Americans swept up in the tracking.

    A 2013 European Parliament report on the PRISM program captured the EU’s sense of alarm, noting the “very strong implications” for EU citizens.

    “PRISM seems to have allowed an unprecedented scale and depth in intelligence gathering,” the report said, “which goes beyond counter-terrorism and beyond espionage activities carried out by liberal regimes in the past. This may lead towards an illegal form of Total Information Awareness where data of millions of people are subject to collection and manipulation by the NSA.”

    Privacy Shield was a 2016 US-EU agreement designed to address those concerns by making US companies certifiably accountable for their handling of EU user data. For a time, it seemed as if Privacy Shield could be a lasting solution facilitating the growth of the internet and a globally connected society, one in which the free flow of data would not be impeded.

    But when the European Court of Justice invalidated that framework in 2020, it reiterated longstanding surveillance concerns and insisted that Privacy Shield still didn’t provide EU citizens’ personal information the same level of protection in the US that it enjoys in EU countries, a standard required under GDPR, the EU’s signature privacy law.

    The loss of Privacy Shield created enormous uncertainty for the more than 5,300 businesses that rely on the smooth transfer of data across borders. The US government has said transatlantic data flows support the more than $7 trillion dollars of economic activity that occurs every year between the United States and the European Union. And the US Chamber of Commerce has estimated that transatlantic data transfers account for about half of all data transfers in both the US and the EU.

    The Biden administration has moved to implement a successor to Privacy Shield that contains some changes to US surveillance practices, and if it is fully implemented in time, it could prevent Meta and other companies from having to suspend transatlantic data transfers or some of their European operations.

    But it’s unclear whether those changes will be enough to be accepted by the EU, or whether the new data privacy framework could avoid its own court challenge.

    The possibility that US-EU data transfers may be seriously disrupted is refocusing scrutiny on US surveillance law just as the US government has been sounding its own alarms about Chinese government surveillance.

    US officials have warned that China could seek to use data collected from TikTok or other foreign-linked companies to benefit the country’s intelligence or propaganda campaigns, using the personal information to identify spying targets or to manipulate public opinion through targeted disinformation.

    But US moral authority on the issue risks being eroded by the EU criticism, a problem for the US government that may only be compounded by its own missteps.

    Just last week, a federal court described how the FBI improperly accessed a vast intelligence database meant for surveilling foreign nationals in a bid to gather information on US Capitol rioters and those who protested the 2020 killing of George Floyd.

    The improper access, which was not “reasonably likely” to retrieve foreign intelligence information or evidence of a crime, according to a Justice Department assessment described in the court’s opinion, has only inflamed domestic critics of US surveillance law, and could give ammunition to EU critics.

    The intelligence database at issue was authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — the same law used to justify the NSA’s PRISM program and which the EU has repeatedly cited as a danger to its citizens and a reason to suspect transatlantic data sharing.

    While the US distinguishes itself from China based on commitments to open and democratic governance, the EU’s concerns about the US are not much different in kind: They come from a place of deep mistrust of broad surveillance authority and suspicions about the potential misuse of user data.

    For years, civil liberties advocates have alleged that Section 702 enables warrantless spying on Americans on an enormous scale. Now, the FBI incident may only further validate EU fears; add to the existing concerns that led to Meta’s fine; contribute to the potential unraveling of the US-EU data relationship; and damage US credibility in its push to warn about the hypothetical risks of letting TikTok data flow to China.

    If a new transatlantic data agreement is delayed or falls apart, Meta won’t be the only company stuck with the bill. Thousands of other companies may get caught in the middle, and the United States will have to hope nobody looks too closely at why while still trying to make a case against TikTok.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chris Sununu will decide on 2024 presidential bid ‘in the next week or two’ | CNN Politics

    Chris Sununu will decide on 2024 presidential bid ‘in the next week or two’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu said Sunday he will decide “in the next week or two” if he wants to mount a bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination and enter an already crowded field of candidates.

    “When I start doing something, I’m 120% in,” the governor said on CNN’s “State of the Union” in an interview with Jake Tapper. “Pretty soon, we’ll make a decision, probably in the next week or two. And we’ll either be go or no-go,” he added.

    Sununu’s remarks come as the list of 2024 GOP hopefuls continues to expand, with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott entering the race last week.

    Currently in his fourth term, the New Hampshire governor said figuring out where he could be most effective would factor into his 2024 decision.

    “I still have a 24/7 job,” he said. “The money has been lined up. The support’s been lined up. There’s a pathway to win. All that – those boxes are checked. The family’s on board, which is always a big one. I just got to make sure it’s right for the party and right for me,” he said.

    Sununu also said he wanted to ensure he wasn’t more useful outside the presidential race as he looks to steer the Republican Party away from the chaos of its current primary front-runner, former President Donald Trump.

    “Making sure that when it comes to where I want to see the party go … that maybe I talk a little differently, I talk with a different approach. I want more candidates to be empowered. Can I do that more effectively as a candidate? Can I do that more effectively as someone who’s kind of traveling the country, maybe speaking a little more freely?” Sununu said.

    “I just want what’s best for the party,” he continued. “It doesn’t have to be the Chris Sununu show all the time.”

    With Trump leading in current GOP primary polling, Sununu said the former president was playing the “victim card.”

    “Former President Trump is doing better than anybody thought. He is playing this victim card. The media, the DA in New York, all these things have kind of worked in his favor very much,” the governor said. “Just the fact that we are talking about Donald Trump as a victim, I mean, that is unique in itself. But that is not lasting, necessarily. That does not mean the support he has today turns into a vote nine months from now.”

    Sununu avoided harsh criticism of his other potential rivals, calling DeSantis a “very good governor” and praising him for embarking upon a retail politics tour of New Hampshire. The two met for an hour earlier this month when the Florida governor visited the Granite State to meet with state legislators.

    But Sununu suggested Sunday that DeSantis’ focus on cultural fights back in Florida avoided more important issues, such as government efficiency.

    “I’m not saying we shouldn’t talk about the culture war stuff, don’t get me wrong,” he said. “I just don’t believe government is going to solve a culture war.”

    DeSantis’ recent pledge to consider pardoning some participants in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol was not “disqualifying” for a presidential candidate, Sununu said, even if it’s not something he would do himself.

    Meanwhile, Sununu said the agreement in principle struck by the White House and Republican negotiators on raising the debt ceiling was likely a win since some members of both parties are now balking at the deal.

    “It is a miracle, I mean release the doves,” the governor said. “Washington is actually moving forward. Both sides seem pretty frustrated, which means it’s probably a pretty good deal, actually.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin will decide on Senate run ‘before the Fourth of July’ | CNN Politics

    Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin will decide on Senate run ‘before the Fourth of July’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland said Sunday that he is “seriously considering” a bid for Senate and expects to announce a decision before July 4.

    “I have not decided,” Raskin told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” when asked if he would seek the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin. “I love the House of Representatives, I love the people I serve with, and I love being in the People’s House. But, as some of my House colleagues have pointed out, these Senate seats only open up every 25 or 30 years. A lot of people are encouraging me to check it out.”

    “I’m hoping, before the Fourth of July, I will have an answer for everybody,” said Raskin.

    Cardin announced last month that he would not seek reelection in 2024 after three terms in the Senate. The field of Democrats looking to succeed him in deep-blue Maryland already includes US Rep. David Trone, Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks and Montgomery County Councilmember Will Jawando.

    Former House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer, the senior member of the Maryland congressional delegation, endorsed Alsobrooks last week. Asked by Bash if that would affect his decision to run, Raskin said: “Steny Hoyer is my friend, and so I have talked to him. I have talked to all of my colleagues about it.”

    “We have got awesome political leaders in Maryland, and I would not run against anybody else,” Raskin said. “It’s totally based on the experience I have had trying to defend our democracy and our freedom and the Bill of Rights against the Trump movement, which I think is such a danger.”

    Raskin, who disclosed a cancer diagnosis in December, said he has gotten a “clean bill of health” and is in remission following his treatment and “waiting for my hair and my eyelashes and everything to come back.”

    On Monday, the Maryland Democrat and his GOP counterpart on the Oversight panel, Chairman James Comer, are expected to review an internal FBI document that some Republicans claim will shed light on an allegation that, as vice president, Joe Biden was involved in a criminal scheme with a foreign national.

    Comer subpoenaed FBI Director Christopher Wray for the document last month and has since said he plans to begin proceedings to hold Wray in contempt of Congress for failing to turn it over to the committee. Despite the FBI’s accommodation, Comer plans to move with forward with the contempt process, arguing it is not enough to satisfy the terms of his subpoena.

    “That demonstrates to me what they’re really interested in is holding the FBI director in contempt, not getting a document they’ve already seen,” Raskin told Bash, adding, “I don’t know what this document is because the majority has closed us out, the Democrats”

    “It’s all about the 2024 campaign,” Raskin said.

    Asked about concerns surrounding 80-year-old Biden’s age as he seeks reelection next year, Raskin said the president “deserves to be judged by the results of his administration.”

    “That’s what should matter to us as the people,” the congressman said.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Timeline: The special counsel inquiry into Trump’s handling of classified documents | CNN Politics

    Timeline: The special counsel inquiry into Trump’s handling of classified documents | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The federal criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump’s potential mishandling of classified documents escalated in stunning fashion this week with Trump’s indictment.

    The indictment hasn’t been unsealed yet, so details of the charges aren’t publicly available. But the investigation – led by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith – revolves around sensitive government papers that Trump held onto after his White House term ended in January 2021. The special counsel has also examined whether Trump or his aides obstructed the investigation.

    Federal authorities have recovered more than 325 classified documents from Trump. He has voluntarily given back some materials, his lawyers turned over additional files after a subpoena, and the FBI found dozens of classified records during a court-approved search of his Mar-a-Lago home last summer.

    Trump has denied all wrongdoing and claims the investigation is a politically motivated sham, intended to derail his ongoing campaign to win the Republican 2024 nomination and return to the White House.

    Here’s a timeline of the important developments in the blockbuster investigation.

    An official from the National Archives and Records Administration contacts Trump’s team after realizing that several important documents weren’t handed over before Trump left the White House. In hopes of locating the missing items, NARA lawyer Gary Stern reaches out to someone who served in the White House counsel’s office under Trump, who was the point of contact for recordkeeping matters. The missing documents include some of Trump’s correspondence with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, as well as the map of Hurricane Dorian that Trump infamously altered with a sharpie pen.

    In a taped conversation, Trump acknowledges that he still has a classified Pentagon document about a possible attack against Iran, according to CNN reporting. The recording, which was made at Trump’s golf club in New Jersey, indicates that Trump understood that he retained classified material after leaving the White House. The special counsel later obtained this audiotape, a key piece of evidence in his inquiry.

    NARA grows frustrated with the slow pace of document turnover after several months of conversations with the Trump team. Stern reaches out to another Trump attorney to intervene. The archivist asks about several boxes of records that were apparently taken to Mar-a-Lago during Trump’s relocation to Florida. NARA still doesn’t receive the White House documents they are searching for.

    After months of discussions with Trump’s team, NARA retrieves 15 boxes of Trump White House records from Mar-a-Lago. The boxes contained some materials that were part of “special access programs,” known as SAP, which is a classification that includes protocols to significantly limit who would have access to the information. NARA says in a statement that some of the records it received at the end of Trump’s administration were “torn up by former President Trump,” and that White House officials had to tape them back together. Not all the torn-up documents were reconstructed, NARA says.

    NARA asks the Justice Department to investigate Trump’s handling of White House records and whether he violated the Presidential Records Act and other laws related to classified information. The Presidential Records Act requires all records created by a sitting president to be turned over to the National Archives at the end of their administration.

    NARA informs the Justice Department that some of the documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago included classified material. NARA also tells the department that, despite being warned it was illegal, Trump occasionally tore up government documents while he was president.

    On April 7, NARA publicly acknowledges for the first time that the Justice Department is involved, and news outlets report that prosecutors have launched a criminal probe into Trump’s mishandling of classified documents. Around this time, FBI agents quietly interview Trump aides at Mar-a-Lago about the handling of presidential records as part of their widening investigation.

    The FBI asks NARA for access to the 15 boxes it retrieved from Mar-a-Lago in January. The request was formally transmitted to NARA by President Joe Biden’s White House Counsel’s office, because the incumbent president controls presidential documents in NARA custody.

    The Justice Department sends a letter to Trump’s lawyers as part of its effort to access the 15 boxes, notifying them that more than 100 classified documents, totaling more than 700 pages, were found in the boxes. The letter says the FBI and US intelligence agencies need “immediate access” to these materials because of “important national security interests.” Also on this day, Trump lawyers ask NARA to delay its plans to give the FBI access to these materials. Trump’s lawyers say they want time to examine the materials to see if anything is privileged, and that they are making a “protective assertion of executive privilege” over all the documents.

    Trump’s lawyers write again to NARA, and ask again that NARA postpone its plans to give the FBI access to the materials retrieved from Mar-a-Lago.

    Debra Steidel Wall, the acting archivist of the United States, who runs NARA, informs Trump’s lawyers that she is rejecting their claims of “protective” executive privilege over all the materials taken from Mar-a-Lago and will therefore turn over the materials to the FBI and US intelligence agencies, in a four-page letter.

    The Justice Department subpoenas Trump, demanding all documents with classification markings that are still at Mar-a-Lago. At some point after receiving the subpoena, Trump asks his lawyer Evan Corcoran if there was any way to fight the subpoena, but Corcoran tells him he has to comply, according to notes Cochran took and later gave to investigators. Also after getting the subpoena, Trump aides are captured on surveillance footage moving document boxes into and out of a basement storage room – which has become a major element of the obstruction investigation.

    News outlets report that investigators subpoenaed NARA for access to the classified documents they retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The subpoena is the first public indication of the Justice Department using a grand jury in its investigation.

    As part of the effort to comply with the subpoena, Corcoran searches a Mar-a-Lago storage room and finds 38 classified documents. According to a lawsuit that the former president later filed, Trump invites FBI officials to come to Mar-a-Lago to retrieve the subpoenaed materials.

    Federal investigators, including a top Justice Department counterintelligence official, visit Mar-a-Lago to deal with the subpoena for remaining classified documents. The investigators meet with Trump’s attorneys, including Corcoran, and look around the basement storage room where the documents were stored. Trump briefly stops by the meeting to say hello to the officials, but he does not answer any questions. Corcoran hands over the 38 classified documents that he found. Trump lawyer Christina Bobb signs a sworn affidavit inaccurately asserting that there aren’t any more classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

    Trump’s attorneys receive a letter from federal investigators, asking them to further secure the room where documents are being stored. In response, Trump aides add a padlock to the room in the basement of Mar-a-Lago.

    Federal investigators serve a subpoena to the Trump Organization, demanding surveillance video from Mar-a-Lago. Trump’s company complies with the subpoena and turns over the footage. CNN has reported that this was part of an effort to gather information about who had access to areas at the club where government documents were stored.

    The FBI executes a court-approved search warrant at Mar-a-Lago – a major escalation of the investigation. The search focused on the area of the club where Trump’s offices and personal quarters are located. Federal agents found more than 100 additional classified documents at the property. The search was the first time in American history that a former president’s home was searched as part of a criminal investigation.

    Trump sends a message through one his lawyers to Attorney General Merrick Garland, saying he has “been hearing from people all over the country about the raid” who are “angry,” and that “whatever I can do to take the heat down, to bring the pressure down, just let us know,” according to a lawsuit he later filed. Hours later, after three days of silence, Garland makes a brief public statement about the investigation. He reveals that he personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant, and that the Justice Department will continue to apply the law “without fear or favor.” Garland also pushes back against what he called “unfounded attacks on the professionalism of the FBI and Justice Department.”

    Federal Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart approves the unsealing of the Mar-a-Lago search warrant and its property receipt, at the Justice Department’s request and after Trump’s lawyers agree to the release. The warrant reveals the Justice Department is looking into possible violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice and criminal handling of government records, as part of its investigation.

    Trump files a federal lawsuit seeking the appointment of a third-party attorney known as a “special master” to independently review the materials that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago. In the lawsuit, Trump’s lawyers argue that the Justice Department can’t be trusted to do its own review for potentially privileged materials that should be siloed off from the criminal probe.

    In a major ruling in Trump’s favor, Federal District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, grants Trump’s request for a special master to review the seized materials from Mar-a-Lago. She says the special master will have the power to look for documents covered under attorney-client privilege and executive privilege.

    The Justice Department appeals Cannon’s decision in the special master case.

    Cannon appoints senior Judge Raymond Dearie to serve as the special master and sets a November 30 deadline for the Brooklyn-based federal judge to finish his review of the seized materials.

    A maintenance worker drains the swimming pool at Mar-a-Lago, which ends up flooding a room where there are computer severs that contain surveillance video logs, according to CNN reporting. It’s unclear if the flood was accidental or on purpose, and it’s possible that the IT equipment wasn’t damaged, but federal prosecutors found the incident to be suspicious.

    Former Trump administration official Kash Patel testifies before the federal grand jury in the classified documents investigation. A Trump loyalist, Patel had publicly claimed that Trump declassified all the materials that ended up at Mar-a-Lago, even though there is no evidence to back up those assertions.

    Garland announces that he is appointing special counsel Jack Smith to take over the investigation.

    A federal appeals court shuts down the special master review of the documents that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago. The appeals panel rebuked Cannon’s earlier decisions, writing that she essentially tried to “interfere” with the criminal probe and had created a “special exception” in the law to help Trump.

    Trump attorney Timothy Parlatore testifies before the special counsel’s grand jury, where he described how Trump’s lawyers scoured his properties for classified materials. He later left Trump’s legal team.

    Trump’s legal team searches four of his properties in Florida, New York and New Jersey for additional classified material. They find two more classified files in a Florida storage unit, and give them to the FBI. Around this time, Trump’s team also finds additional papers with classification markings at Mar-a-Lago, and they give those materials to the Justice Department. They also turn over a laptop belonging to a Trump aide who had copied those documents onto the computer, not realizing they were classified.

    A string of key witnesses testify before the special counsel’s grand jury in Washington, DC. This includes Trump administration officials Robert O’Brien and Ric Grenell, who handled national security and intelligence matters; Margo Martin, a communications aide who continued working for Trump after he left the White House; and Matthew Calamari Sr. and his son, Matthew Calamari Jr., longtime Trump employees who oversee security for the Trump Organization.

    In response to a new subpoena from the special counsel, Trump’s lawyers turn over some material related to a classified Pentagon document that he discussed at a recorded meeting in 2021. However, Trump’s team wasn’t able to find the specific document – about a potential US attack on Iran – that prosecutors were looking for.

    Corcoran, the lead Trump attorney, testifies before the grand jury in Washington, DC. This occurred after a federal judge ordered him to answer prosecutors’ questions, ruling that attorney-client privilege did not shield his discussion with Trump because Trump might been trying to commit a crime through his attorneys. Corcoran later recused himself from handling the Mar-a-Lago matter.

    The first public indications emerge that the special counsel is using a second grand jury in Miami to gather evidence. Multiple witnesses testify in front of the Miami-based panel, CNN reported.

    Trump lawyers meet with senior Justice Department officials – including special counsel Smith – to discuss the Mar-a-Lago investigation. The sitdown lasted about 90 minutes, and Trump’s team raised concerns about the probe, which they have called an “unlawful” and “outrageous” abuse of the legal system.

    News outlets report that the Justice Department recently sent a “target letter” to Trump, formally notifying him that he’s a target of the investigation into potential mishandling of classified documents.

    News outlets report that Trump has been indicted in connection with the classified documents investigation. Trump also says in a social media post that the Justice Department informed his attorneys that he was indicted – and called the case a “hoax.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Impeachment push set to take center stage in House, bringing new chapter for GOP | CNN Politics

    Impeachment push set to take center stage in House, bringing new chapter for GOP | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Republicans are preparing to let the push for potential impeachment proceedings dominate their agenda over the next few months, as Speaker Kevin McCarthy faces growing pressure from an increasingly restive right flank eager to take aim at President Joe Biden and his Cabinet.

    The increased focus on impeachment — with Biden’s attorney general and homeland security secretary the highest on the GOP’s list — underscores how Republicans are quickly shifting their focus to red-meat issues that could fire up their base, even as some in their conference are nervous about voter backlash over the more aggressive approach.

    Between July and September, Republicans are slated to hear high-profile testimony from a trio of Biden Cabinet officials who have been top impeachment targets on the right: Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and Attorney General Merrick Garland.

    Just this week, a new focus emerged for McCarthy when he announced that Republicans are prepared to open an impeachment inquiry into Garland if an IRS whistleblower’s claim about alleged meddling in the Hunter Biden case holds up, an idea that has been heavily promoted by the far-right bloc of his conference.

    McCarthy’s comments then set off fresh momentum. He appeared side by side with House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan on Fox News Wednesday night to reaffirm his position. And on Thursday, Jordan, along with House Oversight Chair James Comer and House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith requested transcribed interviews with Department of Justice, FBI and IRS officials involved in the Hunter Biden case, including US Attorney David Weiss, the Trump-appointed attorney who oversaw the criminal investigation. Garland has rejected claims that the Justice Department improperly interfered in the probe.

    The moves come amid pressure on House GOP leaders and committee chairmen to launch official impeachment proceedings – potentially on Biden himself. House Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green said he is conducting a “five phase” investigation into Mayorkas over problems at the southern border that could culminate in an impeachment recommendation to the House Judiciary Committee, which Green expects to finish by this September. His committee is also expected to include a review of Biden’s handling of the border as part of that impeachment probe.

    “We’re looking at all the things that they’re failing to do,” Green told CNN. “There’s not going to be that much of a change other than we’ll dig into the actual actions of the president in conjunction with what’s happened.”

    With patience on the right wearing out, one hardline GOP member, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, tried to force a snap floor vote last week on impeaching Biden, though Republican leaders rebuffed the effort and referred the matter to relevant committees instead.

    “We’ve been investigating this failure at the southern border now for a little while … and now the House has asked us to add the president’s actions into this,” Green said. “And we’ll dig into that too.”

    Conservative firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has introduced a slew of impeachment articles against Biden and various Cabinet members, has also signaled she intends to force floor votes on her resolutions, meaning the issue is sure to take center stage for the House GOP in the weeks and months ahead.

    “I’ve talked to everyone here until I’m blue in the face for a long time about impeachment,” Greene told CNN.

    It all represents a new chapter for the nascent House Republican majority – and particularly for McCarthy, who has up until this point been reluctant to lean into impeachment proceedings, instead insisting that his committee chairs focus on gathering evidence and holding hearings before going down that route. And he has instead tried to channel his conference’s focus on messaging bills like energy and immigration.

    Many in McCarthy’s conference are uncertain about the new focus.

    “Impeachment should be treated in the serious matter it deserves,” said Rep. Don Bacon, who represents a Nebraska swing district and said he would review the facts before deciding how to proceed with any impeachment proceedings. “We’ve lowered the bar over the last four years, and it’s not healthy.”

    After facing backlash from conservatives for cutting a debt limit deal with Biden and as the clock ticks toward the 2024 elections, McCarthy has started to warm up to the idea of impeaching a member of Biden’s Cabinet – whether it be Garland or Mayorkas or both, according to multiple sources familiar with this thinking. The move could win over some on his right flank.

    McCarthy has also faced pressure behind closed doors as members like Greene have met with him to personally make their case for why the House GOP should launch impeachment proceedings.

    And McCarthy will need every ounce of conservative support he can get as he heads into spending season, where he may be forced to ultimately compromise with Democrats once again and fall short of the demands from the far right.

    “I think what the House is going to do, we’re going to continue to investigate. We’re going to continue to follow this chain of evidence,” Rep. Byron Donalds, a member of the hardliner House Freedom Caucus, told CNN after the IRS whistleblower testimony was revealed. “I think the evidence is leading us to clear issues of obstruction of Justice at the Department of Justice. And with the White House.”

    Impeaching a Cabinet official has only happened once in US history when William Belknap, the secretary of war, was impeached by the House before being acquitted by the Senate in 1876. But some in the GOP view the idea of charging a Cabinet member with committing a high crime or misdemeanor as an easier sell than impeaching Biden himself.

    Yet McCarthy would still have some serious work to do in wrangling the votes for impeachment, with some moderate and vulnerable House Republicans still concerned about the optics of the politically contentious move, which would be dead on arrival in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Some of those Republican holdouts serve on the House Judiciary Committee, whose panel would be responsible for launching any official impeachment proceedings.

    “I don’t know why we have members on Judiciary that can’t vote for impeachment,” Greene told CNN.

    In the meantime, committees are expected to plug away with their investigative work. The House Oversight panel intends to conduct transcribed interviews with witnesses in the investigations into Biden’s mishandling of classified material and potential Biden family influence peddling, an Oversight Committee aide told CNN, while Weiss faces a deadline of next week to hand over documents related to the Hunter Biden probe.

    And in addition to taking aim at Biden, some key Republicans are pushing the House to take up a symbolic effort to clear Trump’s name, in just another example of how Republicans are using their power to run defense for Trump. Last week, Greene and House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik introduced a pair of resolutions to expunge both of Trump’s impeachments – something McCarthy also said he supports.

    “It is past time to expunge Democrats’ sham smear against not only President Trump’s name, but against millions of patriots across the country,” Stefanik said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Rep. Mondaire Jones announces new election bid in New York | CNN Politics

    Former Rep. Mondaire Jones announces new election bid in New York | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Democratic Rep. Mondaire Jones announced Wednesday that he is running for Congress in New York’s 17th District, the seat he previously represented before redistricting thwarted his reelection plans last year.

    “I’ve never been Washington’s choice. It’s because I stand up to corruption. I battle with Republicans trying to overthrow our democracy and ban abortion, even as I push my party to fight harder for working people. I’m running to finish the work I began,” Jones said in a tweet accompanying his campaign launch video.

    “Most people in Washington didn’t grow up like me. They have no idea what it’s like to struggle. We got to get Washington back on the side of working people. I know we can do better. For me, this is personal,” he said.

    Jones’ bid will pit him against Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of Rockland County and sets up a potentially brutal Democratic primary in the swing district.

    Westchester residents Liz Whitmer Gereghty, the sister of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer who previously served on the district’s school board, and MaryAnn Carr have also declared their candidacies for the 17th District. Gereghty is planning to run as a more moderate candidate in her bid to flip the seat.

    Jones became one of the first two openly gay Black men elected to Congress when he first won the race to succeed former Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey in 2020. He served as a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and was elected unanimously by his colleagues to serve as the freshman representative to House Democratic Leadership.

    Jones was seen as a rising star in the party for his positions on expanding the size of the Supreme Court and supporting the “Green New Deal” while also voting for the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure deal and increased police funding.

    Jones chose not to run for reelection for his old seat after redistricting placed him in the same district as former Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, the then-chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He instead ran in New York’s 10th District, and ultimately lost to Dan Goldman in the Democratic primary. Goldman went on to win the race, but Maloney ultimately lost his election to Lawler.

    Democrats are now eager to flip the 17th District seat and ensure a Democrat succeeds in the 2024 congressional race.

    Jones was an on-air CNN political commentator for several months earlier this year before leaving the network.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pentagon seeks to increase pressure on Tuberville to break hold on military nominations | CNN Politics

    Pentagon seeks to increase pressure on Tuberville to break hold on military nominations | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Pentagon is seeking to increase pressure on Sen. Tommy Tuberville in an attempt to break the Alabama Republican’s one-man hold on hundreds of senior military nominations.

    The effort includes back-channel conversations with Congress and members of the key oversight committees, but also a public campaign to increase awareness of the effects of the holds on the military and its families.

    “Hill leadership knows this is a problem,” a Defense official told CNN.

    As of July 7, Tuberville’s hold was impacting 265 senior military officers. An internal assessment put together by the Pentagon and obtained by CNN says the holds affect the families of 84 officers awaiting confirmation, including officers who have paid out of pocket to move their families, military spouses who have left their jobs anticipating new assignments, and children unable to enroll in new schools.

    The Pentagon’s deputy press secretary, Sabrina Singh, highlighted several of these examples at a press briefing Monday.

    “This is having an incredible impact not just to our general and flag officers but to our families,” Singh said, “and we certainly urge Senator Tuberville to lift these holds.”

    The assessment has been shared with lawmakers and is expected to be updated weekly as the number of holds grows. By the end of the year, Defense officials expect more than 600 senior officers to be up for nomination, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and other top military leaders.

    Publicizing the assessment and the effects the holds have on military families is a way of generating awareness of the blocked nominations, the defense official said, and the military services are compiling the increasing the numbers.

    “We obviously keep up the pressure, because we don’t want anyone to forget about it,” the Defense official said.

    Speaking with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Monday, Tuberville insisted he is not blocking confirmations and that the Senate had plenty of time to take up the nominees.

    “I’m just stopping them from confirming hundreds at a time,” Tuberville said. “They can confirm as many as they want, during the day. We’re just sitting around, twiddling our thumbs most of the time during the week and should be confirming people.”

    Though Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has only spoken once with Tuberville, the senator said, the Pentagon’s legislative affairs team has been in regular contact with the Hill and the Senate Armed Services Committee, where the nominations are stalled. Tuberville has not backed down from maintaining his block on nominations as he protests the Defense Department’s reproductive health policies, claiming there is no impact on national security and no risk to US military readiness.

    “I’m not gonna change my approach,” Tuberville said Monday.

    Instead, Defense officials are trying to get Republican senators to put pressure on Tuberville to lift his holds. Sen. Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said Tuesday that “We need these officers in place.” Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, has said in the past that Tuberville’s hold “is not the best way to go about it.”

    But the criticism has done little to shift Tuberville’s position.

    The hold disrupts what is typically a routine process of confirming hundreds of military nominations at once known as unanimous consent. With Tuberville’s hold in place, the Senate would need to take each nomination to the floor for an individual vote, which could take months and hundreds of hours of floor time to complete. 

    “It’s a Senate question, and it’s really a Republican question,” the Defense official told CNN.

    Gen. Charles Q. Brown, whose nomination to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is on hold, was asked about the effects of the holds repeatedly in his confirmation hearing Tuesday. Brown spoke about the impacts on military readiness and retention, as well as the cascading effects on junior officers who can’t get promoted because of a blocked spot.

    “The area that hits us, I think that we do need to think about is how it impacts our families, because it has an impact not just for the senior officer, but you know, all their staff and all those below them it has an impact,” Brown said in response to a question from Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

    On Monday, Austin reiterated those concerns at the relinquishment of command ceremony for Gen. David Berger, the Marine Corps Commandant. Berger’s nominated successor, Gen. Eric Smith, has not yet been confirmed alongside the more than 200 other military officers stalled in Tuberville’s hold. 

    Austin said Monday that smooth transitions of leadership “are central to the defense of the United States,” and crucial “for our military readiness” and “our military families.” 

    “[O]ur military families give up so much to support those who serve. So they shouldn’t be weighed down with any extra uncertainty,” Austin said. “We have a sacred duty to do right by those who volunteer to wear the cloth of our nation. And I remain confident that all Americans can come together to agree on that basic obligation to those who keep us safe. I am also confident that the United States Senate will meet its responsibilities.” 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McCarthy told Trump he backed expunging impeachments but there’s no vote being scheduled | CNN Politics

    McCarthy told Trump he backed expunging impeachments but there’s no vote being scheduled | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In a private call with former President Donald Trump, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he personally backed the idea of expunging Trump’s two impeachments and would bring it up to the conference to gauge support, a source said. He did not promise to bring it to the floor, the source added.

    McCarthy, a California Republican, has been working overtime to try and placate Trump after an interview last month, in which McCarthy said he thinks the former president can win in 2024, but did not know if he was the “strongest” candidate, prompting outrage from Trump advisers and allies. The speaker’s perceived transgression once again raised questions from Trump and his inner circle as to why he had not yet endorsed the former president in his 2024 presidential bid.

    McCarthy called Trump to apologize after the interview, claiming he misspoke on CNBC, sources told CNN at the time. It is unclear what, if any, other promises were made on this call.

    Politico first reported the endorsement of the position made by McCarthy to Trump, but McCarthy disputed the assertion in the Politico reporting that he had promised to hold the vote.

    “No,” McCarthy told reporters Thursday when asked if he had promised to hold the expungement vote. When pressed on if he would commit to not holding a vote, he said it should “go through committee like anything else.”

    Multiple sources tell CNN that calling a House vote to expunge the two impeachments against the former president would be a fool’s errand, as leadership does not have the votes to pass this. So even if McCarthy indicated to Trump he’d do it, it’s unlikely votes would be there – likely further inflaming tensions. Additionally, it is unclear if expunging an impeachment is possible and it has never been done before.

    There is no clear procedural consequence of a resolution that portends to “expunge” Trump’s impeachment, according to guidance from the House Parliamentarian’s office. Efforts that have been discuss include a non-binding House resolution expressing the sense of the House, or “expresses the sentiments of one chamber.” Not only would that measure not expunge the impeachment, the effort also cannot undo the two votes that were taken in 2019 and 2020 that impeached the former president. Those votes would still exist in the Congressional Record.

    Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill, including GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, have pushed McCarthy to call a House vote to expunge the two impeachments.

    GOP Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins Friday that he would vote to expunge Trump’s impeachment if McCarthy were to bring it to the floor but added that it wouldn’t be “wise” for the speaker to do so “in terms of precedent that it sets.”

    “It’s probably wise for the Republican base. It’s not wise in terms of constitutional history,” Buck said on “The Source,” adding that “the Senate expunged when they voted not to impeach.”

    Hours after McCarthy’s CNBC interview last month and after he had called the former President to clean up his remarks, Trump said “they better do it” when asked by a supporter at the opening of his New Hampshire campaign office about the House of Representatives expunging his two impeachments.

    “If McCarthy does his job, they’ll expunge both of those crappy impeachments,” a supporter said as Trump signed hats and mingled with voters at his new New Hampshire office.

    “I understand they’re working on that,” Trump said. “They better do it.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Republicans can’t get out of their climate bind, even as extreme heat overwhelms the US | CNN Politics

    Why Republicans can’t get out of their climate bind, even as extreme heat overwhelms the US | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Deadly heatwaves are baking the US. Scientists just reported that July will be the hottest month on record. And now, after years of skepticism and denial in the GOP ranks, a small number of Republicans are urging their party to get proactive on the climate crisis.

    But the GOP is stuck in a climate bind – and likely will be for the next four years, in large part because they’re still living in the shadow of former president and 2024 Republican frontrunner Donald Trump.

    Even as more Republican politicians are joining the consensus that climate change is real and caused by humans, Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric has driven the party to the right on climate and extreme weather. Trump has called the extremely settled science of climate change a “hoax” and more recently suggested that the impacts of it “may affect us in 300 years.”

    Scientists this week reported that this summer’s unrelenting heat wave would have been “virtually impossible” were it not for the planet-warming pollution from burning fossil fuels. They also confirmed that July will go down as the hottest month on record – and almost certainly that the planet’s temperature is hotter now than it has been in around 120,000 years.

    Yet for being one of the most pressing issues of the 21st century, climate is rarely mentioned on the 2024 campaign trail.

    “As Donald Trump is the near presumptive nominee of our party in 2024, it’s going to be very hard for a party to adopt a climate-sensitive policy,” Sen. Mitt Romney, a Republican from Utah, told CNN. “But Donald Trump’s not going to be around forever.”

    When Republicans do weigh in on climate change – and what we should do about it – they tend to support the idea of capturing planet-warming pollution rather than cutting fossil fuels. But many are reticent to talk about how to solve the problem, and worry Trump is having a chilling effect on policies to combat climate within the party.

    “We need to be talking about this,” Rep. John Curtis, a Republican from Utah and chair of the House’s Conservative Climate Caucus, told CNN. “And part of it for Republicans is when you don’t talk about it, you have no ideas at the table; all you’re doing is saying what you don’t like. We need to be saying what we like.”

    With a few exceptions, Republicans largely are no longer the party of full-on climate change denial. But even as temperatures rise to deadly highs, the GOP is also not actively addressing it. There is still no “robust discussion about how to solve it” within the party, said former South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis, who now runs the conservative climate group RepublicEn, save for criticism of Democrats’ clean-energy initiatives.

    “The good news is Republicans are stopping arguing with thermometers,” Inglis told CNN. Still, he said, “when the experience is multiplied over and over of multiple days of three-digit temperatures in Arizona and record ocean temperatures, people start to say, ‘this is sort of goofy we’re not doing something about this.’”

    Meanwhile, the impacts of a dramatically warming atmosphere are becoming more and more apparent each year. Romney and Curtis, two of the loudest climate voices in the party, both represent Utah – a state that’s no stranger to extreme heat and drought, which scientists say is being fueled by rising global temperatures.

    “There are a number of states, like mine, that are concerned about wildfires and water,” Romney said, adding he believes Republican governors of impacted states have been vocal about these issues.

    Utah and other Western states are looking for ways to cut water use to save the West’s shrinking two largest reservoirs, Lakes Powell and Mead. And even closer to home, Utah’s Great Salt Lake has already disappeared by two-thirds, and scientists are sounding alarms about a rapid continued decline that could kill delicate ecosystems and expose one of fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the nation to toxic dust.

    “I think the evidence so far is that the West is getting drier and hotter,” Romney told CNN. “That means that we’re going to have more difficulty with our crops, we’re going to have a harder time keeping the rivers full of water. The Great Salt Lake is probably going to continue to shrink. And unfortunately, we’re going to see more catastrophic fires. If the trends continue, we need to act.”

    While Republicans blast Democrats’ clean energy policies ahead of the 2024 elections, it’s less clear what the GOP itself would prefer to do about the climate crisis.

    As Curtis tells it, there’s a lot that Republicans and Democrats in Congress agree on. They both want to further reform the permitting process for major energy projects, and they largely agree on the need for more renewable and nuclear energy.

    As the head of the largest GOP climate caucus on the Hill, Curtis’ Utah home is “full solar,” he told CNN, and is heated using geothermal energy.

    While at a recent event at a natural gas drilling site in Ohio, as smoke from Canada’s devastating wildfire season hung thick in the air, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was asked how he would solve the climate crisis. He suggested planting a trillion trees to help offset the pollution created by burning fossil fuels – a bill House Republicans introduced in 2020. The measure has not yet passed the House and has an uncertain future in the Senate.

    Rep. John Curtis, a Utah Republican, said his home is decked out in solar panels and geothermal energy.

    But the biggest and most enduring difference between the two parties is that Republicans want fossil fuels – which are fueling climate change with their heat-trapping pollution – to be in the energy mix for years to come.

    Democrats, meanwhile, have passed legislation to dramatically speed up the clean energy transition and prioritize the development of wind, solar and electrical transmission to get renewables sending electricity into homes faster.

    On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Democrats want to pass more climate legislation if they take back a full majority in Congress. He later told CNN the GOP is “way behind” on climate and there’s been “too little” progress on the party’s stances.

    “I think we’d get a lot more done with a Democratic House, a Democratic president and continuing to have a Democratic Senate,” Schumer told CNN. “Unfortunately, if you look at some of the Republican House and Senate Super PACs, huge amounts of money come from gas, oil and coal.”

    Even though Curtis and Romney are aligned on the party needing to talk about climate change, they differ on how to fix it. While Curtis primarily supports carbon capture and increased research and development into new technologies, Romney is one of the few Republicans speaking in favor of a carbon tax – taxing companies for their pollution.

    “It’s very unlikely that a price on carbon would be acceptable in the House of Representatives,” Romney said. “I think you might find a few Republican senators that would be supportive, but that’s not enough.”

    The idea certainly doesn’t have the support of Trump, or other 2024 candidates for president, and experts predict climate policy will get little to no airtime during the upcoming presidential race.

    “Regrettably, the issue of climate change is currently being held hostage to the culture wars in America,” Edward Maibach, a professor of climate communication at George Mason University and a co-founder of a nationwide climate polling project conducted with Yale University, told CNN in an email. “Donald Trump’s climate denial stance will have a chilling effect on the climate positions of his rivals on the right — even those who know better.”

    Even if climate-conscious Republicans say Trump won’t be in the party forever, Inglis said even a few more years may not be enough time to counteract the rapid changes already happening.

    “That’s still a long way away,” Inglis said. “The scientists are saying we can’t wait, get moving, get moving.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna announces he won’t seek California Senate seat, endorses Rep. Barbara Lee | CNN Politics

    Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna announces he won’t seek California Senate seat, endorses Rep. Barbara Lee | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California announced Sunday that he won’t enter the competitive Democratic primary to fill retiring Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s senate seat in the Golden State, electing to endorse Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee instead.

    “I have concluded that despite a lot of enthusiasm from Bernie [Sanders’] folks, the best place, the most exciting place, action place, fit place, for me to serve as a progressive is in the House of Representatives,” Khanna told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

    “And I’m honored to be co-chairing Barbara Lee’s campaign for the Senate and endorsing her today. We need a strong anti-war senator and she will play that role.”

    The Democratic field to fill Feinstein’s seat also includes Reps. Adam Schiff and Katie Porter, who announced their bids earlier this year. Khanna had previously expressed interest in running for the vacant seat.

    Lee, who announced her bid last month, is a member of the House Democratic leadership, serving as co-chair of the Democratic Steering Committee, and she was the former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

    Throughout her time in Congress, Lee has served as the co-chair and whip of the Progressive Caucus. And before coming to Washington, she spent several years serving in the California state legislature.

    If elected, Lee would be the sole Black female senator serving in the Congress and only the third in US history.

    Lee, Khanna said Sunday, is a “unique voice. She was the lone vote against the endless war in Afghanistan. She stood up so strongly against the war in Iraq. She worked with me in trying to stop the war in Yemen, the War Powers Resolution. And frankly, Jake, representation matters. We don’t have a single African American woman in the United States Senate.”

    Currently, Lee is at a disadvantage compared to her well-funded rivals. She had just $52,000 in cash on hand entering 2023, according to FEC filings, while Schiff had more than $20 million stockpiled at the end of the year and Porter had more than $7.4 million.

    Under California’s primary system, all candidates run on the same ballot, with the top two candidates, regardless of party, advancing to the general election.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FDA requires medical devices be secured against cyberattacks | CNN Business

    FDA requires medical devices be secured against cyberattacks | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    The Food and Drug Administration will now require medical devices meet specific cybersecurity guidelines after years of concerns that a growing number of internet-connected products used by hospitals and healthcare providers could be hit by hacks and ransomware attacks.

    Under FDA guidance issued this week, all new medical device applicants must now submit a plan on how to “monitor, identify, and address” cybersecurity issues, as well as create a process that provides “reasonable assurance” that the device in question is protected. Applicants will also need to make security updates and patches available on a regular schedule and in critical situations, and provide the FDA with “a software bill of materials,” including any open-source or other software their devices use.

    The new security requirements came into effect as part of the sweeping $1.7 trillion federal omnibus spending bill signed by President Joe Biden in December. As part of the new law, the FDA must also update its medical device cybersecurity guidance at least every two years.

    A 2022 report released by the FBI cited research finding 53% of digital medical devices and other internet-connected products in hospitals had known critical vulnerabilities. The report listed a number of medical devices that are susceptible to cyber attacks, including insulin pumps, intracardiac defibrillators, mobile cardiac telemetry and pacemakers.

    “Malign actors who compromise these devices can direct them to give inaccurate readings, administer drug overdoses, or otherwise endanger patient health,” according to the FBI report.

    In 2021, a group of researchers investigating software used in medical devices and machinery used in other industries found over a dozen vulnerabilities that, if exploited by a hacker, could cause critical equipment such as patient monitors to crash.

    The FDA has faced criticisms over the years for not doing enough.

    A 2018 report from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General said the FDA was not adequately protecting devices from getting hacked.

    “FDA had plans and processes for addressing certain medical device problems in the postmarket phase, but its plans and processes were deficient for addressing medical device cybersecurity compromises,” the report said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pentagon investigating alleged classified documents circulating on social media of US and NATO intelligence on Ukraine | CNN Politics

    Pentagon investigating alleged classified documents circulating on social media of US and NATO intelligence on Ukraine | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Pentagon is investigating what appear to be screenshots of classified US and NATO military information about Ukraine circulating on social media, a Pentagon official told CNN.

    CNN has reviewed some of the images circulating on Twitter and Telegram but is unable to verify if they are authentic or have been doctored. US officials say the documents are real slides, part of a larger daily intelligence deck produced by the Pentagon about the war, but it appears the documents have been edited in some places.

    Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh would not weigh in on the documents’ legitimacy but said in a statement that the Defense Department is “aware of the reports of social media posts, and the Department is reviewing the matter.”

    Mykhailo Podolyak, the adviser to the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, said on his Telegram channel he believes the Russians are behind the purported leak. Podolyak said the documents that were disseminated are inauthentic, have “nothing to do with Ukraine’s real plans” and are based on “a large amount of fictitious information.”

    The emergence of the documents, whether genuine or not, has heightened focus on when the planned Ukrainian counteroffensive will begin and what, if anything, either side knows about the other’s preparations for it.

    One image that has been circulating on Russian Telegram channels and was reviewed by CNN is a photo of a hard copy of a document titled “US, Allied & Partner UAF Combat Power Build.” The document, which is from February and marked as secret, lists the amounts of certain Western weapons systems that Ukraine currently has on hand, estimated delivery of additional systems and the training Ukraine has or is expected to complete on the systems.

    Another is titled “Russia/Ukraine Joint Staff J3/4/5 Daily Update (D+370)” and is listed as secret. J3 refers to the operations directorate of the US military’s joint staff, J4 deals with logistics and engineering, and J5 proposes strategies, plans and policy recommendations. “D+370” refers to the date the document was produced: 370 days after the first day of the Russian invasion.

    A third document is a map, listed as top secret, that shows the status of the conflict as of March 1. The map shows Russian and Ukrainian battalion locations and sizes, as well as total assessed losses on both sides. The casualty numbers on this document are what officials believe was doctored – the Russian losses are actually far higher than the “16,000-17,500 killed in action” listed on the document, officials said.

    The document also says that 61,000-71,500 Ukrainians have been killed in action, a number that officials said also appeared edited to be higher than actual Pentagon estimates.

    A fourth document is a weather projection from February, listed as Secret, that assesses where the ground may freeze in Ukraine in a way that would be favorable for vehicle maneuver.

    The New York Times, which first disclosed the Pentagon investigation, reported that some of the images circulating online describe intelligence that could be useful to Russia, such as how quickly the Ukrainians are expending munitions used in US-provided rocket-systems.

    Podolyak called the documents “a bluff, dust in your eyes” and said that “if Russia really did receive real scenario preparations, it would hardly make them public.”

    “Russia is looking for any way to seize the information initiative, to try to influence the scenario plans for Ukraine’s counteroffensive,” he said. “To raise doubts, compromise previous ideas and frighten with their ‘awareness.’ But these are just standard elements of the Russian intelligence’s operational game and nothing more. It has nothing to do with Ukraine’s real plans.”

    Podolyak added that Russian troops “will get acquainted” with Ukraine’s real counteroffensive plans “very soon.”

    Asked about the images circulating on Twitter and Telegram, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told CNN in a statement that “we don’t have the slightest doubt about direct or indirect involvement of the United States and NATO in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.”

    “This level of involvement is rising, is rising gradually,” he said. “We keep our eye on this process. Well, of course, it makes the whole story more complicated, but it cannot influence the final outcome of the special operation.”

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • HHS secretary says ‘everything is on the table’ amid calls to ignore medication abortion ruling | CNN Politics

    HHS secretary says ‘everything is on the table’ amid calls to ignore medication abortion ruling | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra on Sunday said “everything is on the table” following a Texas federal judge’s ruling to suspend the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the medication abortion drug mifepristone.

    In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” the secretary would not say whether he believes the FDA should ignore the ruling and keep the drug on the market, but he maintained that the Biden administration is considering all options.

    “We want the courts to overturn this reckless decision,” Becerra said, adding that there was a “good chance” of Supreme Court intervention but declining to say how, exactly, the administration will handle the ruling in the interim.

    “Everything is on the table. The president said that way back when the Dobbs decision came out. Every option is on the table,” the secretary told Bash, referring to last year’s Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.

    Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in a separate appearance on “State of the Union,” did not back away from her call Friday on CNN for the ruling to be ignored, saying that if it was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, “it would essentially institute a national abortion ban.”

    “I do not believe that the courts have the authority over the FDA that they just asserted, and I do believe that it creates a crisis,” she told Bash.

    Ocasio-Cortez called the ruling “an extreme abuse of power” and said there was precedent for the executive branch ignoring court rulings.

    “I do think that when it comes to gaming out what the very real possibilities are in the coming days, weeks and months, this is not just about speculation, but this is about preparation. And the reality of our courts right now is very disturbing,” she said.

    Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas warned in a separate interview with Bash on Sunday that House GOP appropriators could defund certain FDA programs if the ruling is ultimately ignored.

    “The House Republicans have the power of the purse, and if the administration wants to not lead this ruling, not live up to this ruling, then we’re going to have a problem,” the second-term lawmaker said. “And it may come a point where House Republicans on the appropriation side have to defund FDA programs that don’t make sense.”

    US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk on Friday issued a ruling to halt the decades-old approval of mifepristone, but he paused the ruling from taking effect for a week so it could be appealed, a process that is underway.

    “This is not America,” Becerra said Sunday. “What you saw is that one judge in that one court in that one state, that’s not America. America goes by the evidence. America does what’s fair. America does what is transparent, and we can show that what we do is for the right reasons. That’s not America.”

    Within an hour of the ruling Friday, a different federal judge ruled in favor of 17 Democratic-led states and Washington, DC, looking to expand access to the abortion pill, allowing them to keep the drug available.

    Becerra on Sunday touted the proven safety of the drug, a factor that Kacsmaryk questioned in his ruling. He confirmed that the Department of Justice had already filed its appeal and is waiting for its day in court.

    Still, Becerra had little to say about what tangible preparations the administration would take to secure access to abortion should the drug no longer be available after the weeklong pause.

    “Well, [women] certainly have access today, and we intend to do everything to make sure it’s available for them not just in a week but moving forward, period,” Becerra told Bash when asked if women would have access to the medication after this week.

    The Justice Department and Danco, a mifepristone manufacturer that intervened in the case to defend the approval, have both filed notices of appeal. Attorney General Merrick Garland and Danco said in statements that in addition to the appeals, they will seek “stays” of the ruling, meaning emergency requests that the decision remains frozen while the appeal moves forward.

    They’re appealing to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which is sometimes said to be the country’s most conservative appellate court. Yet some legal scholars are skeptical that the 5th Circuit, as conservative as it is, would let Kacmsaryk’s order take effect.

    “I got to believe that, Dana, an appeals court, the Supreme Court, whatever court has to understand that this ruling by this one judge overturns not just access to mifepristone, but possibly any number of drugs,” Becerra said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Accelerating the EV revolution whether you like it or not | CNN Politics

    Accelerating the EV revolution whether you like it or not | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a plan to remake the way car-obsessed Americans live, using public safety rules to accelerate the shift from internal combustion to electric vehicles.

    Just a fraction of the current auto market is EVs, but under standards announced by the EPA Wednesday, up to two-thirds of new vehicles sold in the US would be zero-emission or plug-in hybrid within a decade.

    The rules, which are not yet final, would use authority under the Clean Air Act to force auto companies to cut pollution and slash vehicle emissions by more than half. They would phase in with model year 2027 vehicles and be fully implemented by 2032. Read CNN’s full report.

    While ambitious, the goals are not unprecedented. They put the federal government on track to catch up with state governments, led by California, that want to stop allowing the sale of internal combustion vehicles by 2035. Read this report from CNN Business about why that’s not as crazy as it seems.

    There is a very big legal question mark looming behind California’s action and the EPA’s effort, which still has a public comment and revision period.

    The current Supreme Court, dominated by conservative justices, has already shown its scorn for EPA rulemaking and its indifference to addressing climate change. Last year, the court nixed the Biden administration’s plan to curb emissions from existing power plants.

    I asked CNN climate reporter Ella Nilsen for her takeaways from the EPA announcement. She offered these key points:

    ► The standards are ambitious, but doable

    If enacted, the newly proposed EPA emissions standards would be one of the Biden administration’s most aggressive climate-change policies yet – moving the US auto market decisively toward electric vehicles in the next decade.

    However, multiple experts said the standards are doable, and even lag slightly behind the California standards, which will completely phase out the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035 to usher in electric vehicles. The US is also following countries including the EU and China, which are moving more aggressively toward electric vehicles.

    ► Charging infrastructure and consumer incentives could be tricky

    This new proposed rule won’t happen overnight; it would be gradually phased in over the next decade. At the same time, the US needs to build up a network of electric charging stations in addition to the ubiquitous gas station. Federal officials have also talked about needing to incentivize more Americans to buy EVs by bringing the cost down, with federal tax credits.

    However, the new $7,500 tax credits (passed last year by Democrats in the Inflation Reduction Act) are incredibly complex due to manufacturing requirements. The credits could actually shrink the eligible number of cars that qualify (however, leased vehicles have more leeway under the new system). Regardless, it will take years for the EV infrastructure, incentives and supply to fall into place to make electric vehicles available to most Americans.

    ► This is a big deal for US climate policy

    This rule will impact the US economy, but it’s also major climate policy. The proposed EPA tailpipe standards would cut planet-warming pollution from US cars in half. Combined with the agency’s medium and heavy-duty vehicles standard, the proposals could cut nearly 10 billion tons of CO2 emissions by 2055.

    Given Americans’ reliance on cars, transportation is a big part of overall US emissions – it accounts for nearly 30% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US, according to the EPA. Cutting down on tailpipe pollution from gas-powered cars and trucks is a big part of decarbonizing the US.

    While the federal government and key states are all in on moving toward EVs, and auto companies are spending big to get competitive in the market, Americans generally are not yet completely embracing the idea.

    Just 4% of Americans currently own an EV, and a scant 12% are seriously considering buying one, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday. Less than half, 43%, say they would consider buying an EV in the future, and a sizable 41% are completely closed off to the idea.

    The expected partisan breakdown applies to those figures. Most of the interest in EVs is among Democrats. Most of the staunch opposition is among Republicans. Younger Americans and those making $100,000 and above are also more interested in buying an EV in the future.

    There are also key regional disparities. In the West, where states are already working to phase in EVs, only 28% say they would not buy an EV. Compare that to half of Southerners who would not consider buying an EV.

    A majority of the country is skeptical that EVs will even have an effect on the climate, according to the poll, with 61% saying EVs will help address climate change only a little or not at all.

    In a separate AP-NORC poll released this week, the most-cited major reasons for not wanting to purchase an EV – out of eight offered in the poll – were expense (60% said they cost too much) and convenience (50% said there aren’t enough charging stations available).

    Access and affordability should be addressed as inventory increases, writes CNN’s Peter Valdes-Dapena, who covers the auto industry. A decade from now, charging should be quicker and easier, EV ranges should be longer and prices should be at or below the cost of an internal combustion vehicle. Read his full report.

    Rather than fighting the rules, as the fossil fuel industry is sure to do, the auto industry is already investing heavily in EVs, responding to tougher regulation already imposed around the world and by California, which moved to ban the sale of new gas and diesel powered vehicles by 2035.

    California actually took the lead on pushing for EVs in the years when the Trump administration was dialing back on federal climate policy. Other states, like Oregon, Washington and Minnesota, have tied their standards to California’s.

    Valdes-Dapena notes that car companies with loyal customer bases are slowly making the switch. He writes:

    Currently, Toyota offers only one electric model in the United States, the BZ4X SUV, but more are planned. Honda, another Japanese brand with a loyal following, offers no EVs currently but the company is gearing up factories in Ohio to build future EV models. Honda expects to offer its first EV next year. General Motors also has a number of EV models coming in the next year or two.

    He also notes that GM has pledged to sell only electric passenger vehicles by 2035.

    And no, this does not mean internal combustion vehicles will be banned. They will still make up the vast majority of vehicles on the road in a decade even if this rule is finalized and withstands challenges in court. But it would represent a tectonic shift.

    [ad_2]

    Source link