ReportWire

Tag: political figures – us

  • Biden administration notifies approved student loan relief applicants as program remains tied up in courts | CNN Politics

    Biden administration notifies approved student loan relief applicants as program remains tied up in courts | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    The Biden administration started notifying individuals who are approved for federal student loan relief on Saturday even as the future of that relief remains in limbo after lower courts blocked the program nationwide.

    The Department of Education began sending emails to borrowers who have been approved to have their federal student loans relieved, explaining that recent legal challenges have kept the administration from discharging the debt.

    “We reviewed your application and determined that you are eligible for loan relief under the Plan,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona wrote in the e-mail, which was provided to CNN. “We have sent this approval on to your loan servicer. You do not need to take any further action.”

    “Unfortunately, a number of lawsuits have been filed challenging the program, which have blocked our ability to discharge your debt at present. We believe strongly that the lawsuits are meritless, and the Department of Justice has appealed on our behalf,” Cardona added.

    Cardona’s e-mail further explains the administration will “discharge your approved debt if and when we prevail in court” and promises to provide further updates.

    The program, which would offer up to $20,000 of debt relief to millions of qualified borrowers, remains on hold after lower courts blocked the program.

    The Biden administration has been unable to discharge any debt and stopped accepting applications due to the court rulings. About 26 million people applied for student loan relief prior to the recent court decisions with 16 million of those applications being approved, according to the Biden administration.

    “President Biden is fighting to get millions of borrowers the relief they need and deserve,” White House spokesperson Abdullah Hasan said. “Some Republican officials and special interests are blocking that from happening. We’re making clear to student borrowers who is standing with them, and who isn’t.”

    The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to allow its student debt relief program to go into effect while the legal challenges continue to play out.

    An “erroneous injunction” from a federal appeals court, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court, “leaves millions of economically vulnerable borrowers in limbo, uncertain about the size of their debt and unable to make financial decisions with an accurate understanding of their future repayment obligations.”

    Government lawyers say that President Joe Biden acted in order to address the financial harms of the pandemic and “smooth the transition to repayment” in order to provide targeted debt relief to certain federal student-loan borrowers affected by the pandemic.

    The Supreme Court has asked the plaintiffs for a response by noon on Wednesday.

    The Biden administration’s request comes as the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this week issued a nationwide injunction on the program following a challenge by Republican-led states, who argue that the student loan debt relief plan violates the separations of power and the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs the process by which federal agencies issue regulations.

    This followed a ruling from a federal judge in Texas who declared the program illegal earlier this month.

    Payments on federal student loans are set to resume in January after a years-long pause due to the pandemic.

    When asked if the administration is considering extending the moratorium on student loan payments, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the administration is “examining all options to provide middle-class families a little extra breathing room.”

    The president last extended the freeze on federal student loan payments in August when he rolled out the sweeping student debt relief plan.

    Source link

  • Who is Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat seeking to succeed Nancy Pelosi | CNN Politics

    Who is Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat seeking to succeed Nancy Pelosi | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries launched his bid for House Democratic leadership on Friday, a historic move in which he would succeed speaker Nancy Pelosi after two decades of leading congressional Democrats. If chosen, Jeffries, a progressive, would become the first Black lawmaker to lead a party in Congress.

    He has widespread support among Democrats, including from Pelosi as well as House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, both of whom said they will also step down from their leadership roles.

    A rising star in the Democratic Party, Jeffries was born in Brooklyn, New York, and studied political science at the State University of New York at Binghamton and received a master’s degree in public policy from Georgetown University. He also attended law school at New York University School of Law where he was on the law review.

    After law school, Jeffries clerked for late federal district judge Harold Baer Jr. of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, was a lawyer for Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and was litigation counsel for CBS and Viacom Inc.

    He started his career in politics after being elected to the New York State Assembly in 2006. In 2012, he was elected to New York’s 8th congressional district, which includes parts of Brooklyn and Queens. During his time in Congress, Jeffries has pushed for policing reform, including a national ban on chokeholds following the death of Eric Garner, a Black man who died in 2014 after being held in the restraining move. He was also instrumental in the passage of the First Step Act and co-sponsored the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act that passed the House but failed in the Senate.

    Jeffries also co-sponsored the Music Modernization Act, a bill that overhauled laws related to how songwriters are paid when their songs are licensed or played. It was signed into law in 2018.

    In 2019, he became chairman of the Democratic caucus, making him the youngest member serving in leadership. Jeffries was part of a select group of lawmakers who were impeachment managers during the Senate trial of then-President Donald Trump, in which he referenced lyrics by late rapper The Notorious B.I.G. when outlining the House’s case against Trump. He has also been a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Budget Committee and Congressional Black Caucus.

    In a letter announcing his leadership bid, Jeffries said he hopes to “lead an effort that centers our communication strategy around the messaging principle that values unite, issues divide.” He also praised the past leadership but said “more must be done to combat inflation, defend our democracy, secure reproductive freedom, welcome new Americans, promote equal protection under the law and improve public safety throughout this country.”

    Source link

  • What a Republican-controlled House could mean for Silicon Valley | CNN Business

    What a Republican-controlled House could mean for Silicon Valley | CNN Business


    Washington
    CNN Business
     — 

    With Republicans projected to take control of the House as a result of the midterm elections, tech giants such as Amazon, Google and Meta, who’ve been in the crosshairs of Democrats in recent years, are soon set to face a very different — but no less hostile — political climate in Washington.

    Under the current Democratic-led Congress, top tech executives have been hauled before lawmakers to testify on everything from their companies’ market dominance to social media’s impact on teen mental health. Democrats have hammered away at online platforms’ handling of hate speech and white nationalism, while promoting legislation that could drastically affect the business models of big tech companies.

    In the lame duck session, Democratic lawmakers could renew their attempts at passing tech-focused antitrust legislation that the industry’s biggest players have spent millions lobbying against.

    Republicans aren’t likely to let up the pressure, policy analysts say. But a change in power in the House would likely mean renewed focus on some political priorities — primarily allegations of anti-conservative social media bias — and perhaps an increased emphasis on China and related national security risks, too.

    Here’s what the results of the midterm elections could mean for Big Tech and the push to regulate it.

    In general, tech companies may face more political noise with a Republican House but potentially less policy risk.

    “Republican gains would be good for megacap tech like Google and Apple,” said Paul Gallant, an industry analyst at Cowen Inc. “Republicans will hold hearings about content bias, but they’re not likely to pass antitrust legislation, which is the biggest threat the companies have faced in years.”

    Expect more of the uncomfortable ritual grillings that have made tech CEOs and their lieutenants a frequent sight in Washington, said one industry official who requested anonymity in order to speak more freely.

    “I think the content moderation debate will not just look at how companies make decisions on their platforms, but also how they’ve interacted with the Biden administration,” the official predicted. “The focus will be, ‘Are you too cozy with, and is your content moderation policy led by, feedback you get from the Biden administration?’”

    One company that may see a reprieve is Twitter, whose new owner, Elon Musk, has won plaudits from conservatives for suggesting he could restore former President Donald Trump’s banned Twitter account, among others, and has used his account to endorse voting for Republicans in the 2022 midterm elections.

    The hearings could culminate in more sweeping proposals to roll back Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal law that grants tech platforms broad latitude to moderate online content as they see fit.

    In the past, Democrats have called for narrowing Section 230, thus exposing tech platforms to more lawsuits, for not removing hate speech and extremist content more aggressively. Republicans have called for expanding platform liability over allegations that social media companies unfairly remove conservative speech.

    Previous legislative proposals to scale back Section 230 have tended to run into constitutionality questions or failed to attract bipartisan support, and those hurdles still remain. But some digital rights advocates who have defended Section 230 aren’t taking anything for granted, saying that if they squint, they can still see a path forward for legislation that might curtail the law.

    “The thing I’m most worried about in the next Congress is a bad Section 230 bill that’s framed as being about ‘protecting kids’ or ‘stopping opioid sales’ or something that sounds non-controversial, but could have far-reaching negative effects” that may unintentionally result in more conservative speech being removed, not less, said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, a digital privacy group.

    Given President Joe Biden’s criticism of Section 230 — a position the White House reiterated as recently as September — he might even be willing to sign such a hypothetical bill. But that scenario is far too premature to consider right now, according to other analysts who point to the Supreme Court, not Congress, as the center of gravity on Section 230.

    There are two high-profile cases pending before the Court that could powerfully affect the law’s scope. The cases have to do with whether tech platforms can be sued in connection with federal anti-terrorism laws; if the Court finds that they can, it would effectively mean a significant narrowing of Section 230’s protections. And it could create openings for others to continue chipping away at the law.

    “Republicans in Congress certainly have their views on content moderation, but the big thing to look for is what the Supreme Court does,” said Andy Halataei, executive vice president of government affairs for the Information Technology Industry Council, a tech-backed advocacy group. “That will drive either the opportunity or the consensus for Congress to move forward.”

    Both parties have been hawkish on China, but expect Republicans to make it a pillar of their agenda. Within the first few days, Republicans could seek to establish a new select committee devoted to China and its impact on US supply chains, according to the industry official.

    The new committee would likely look at the economic leverage China may have over the United States and the national security risks that could pose, ranging from China’s dominance in the rare earth minerals market to agricultural products, the official said.

    And while Republicans would likely bring even greater scrutiny to businesses with links to China, including TikTok, they also would have a substantial impact on the semiconductor industry by exploring further ways to restrict Chinese access to US technology.

    “Republican gains wouldn’t be great for the chips and tools companies because the China hawks will gain power,” said Gallant.

    In a subsequent research note for investors, Gallant added: “For some China hawks — including likely House Foreign Affairs Chair Mike McCaul — Biden can’t go far enough,” suggesting Republicans could try to introduce even more restrictions on China exports through legislation.

    Multiple Congress-watchers told CNN that support for federal privacy legislation is still bipartisan and the area remains one of a handful where lawmakers could make progress in the next Congress.

    One proposal, known as the American Data Privacy and Protection Act, would enshrine the nation’s first-ever consumer data privacy right into US law. It was approved by a key House committee this year and policy analysts say it could see more opportunities to advance next year.

    The privacy issue is becoming more salient to consumers by the day, said Greer, as the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made the security of location data, search histories and other personal information a critical safety matter.

    “Hot button tech policy fights like data privacy, antitrust, and content moderation have massive implications for core issues like abortion access, voting rights, racial justice, and LGBTQ+ protections,” Greer said.

    Source link

  • Former Trump Org. CFO toes line of allegiances while testifying under plea deal condition | CNN Politics

    Former Trump Org. CFO toes line of allegiances while testifying under plea deal condition | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Former CFO Allen Weisselberg appeared visibly pulled in his Friday testimony between allegiance to his employer and needing to cooperate with prosecutors to satisfy his plea agreement in the criminal trial of the Trump Organization.

    The defense attorneys challenged him to that effect several times Friday morning, and attorney Susan Necheles briefly grilled him on his fears of going to jail if the plea deal falls apart.

    “What is in my mind is to tell the truth at this trial,” Weisselberg maintained each time he was asked about his motives on the stand.

    The line of questioning on cross-examination quickly turned heated between the lawyers, with defense attorney Alan Futerfas objecting to Necheles’ questioning at one point in the exchange.

    Weisselberg, the government’s star witness, again distanced former President Donald Trump from the internal “clean up” at the Trump Org. He testified Friday that he mostly dealt with Trump’s sons after Trump was elected president, saying he is not sure what the president knew about the company situation or when.

    “Once he was in the White House we had very little communication about things going on in the company,” Weisselberg testified.

    He also said that Trump’s sons, Eric and Donald Jr., became aware of the illegal practices after an internal review was conducted in 2017 and 2018. Weisselberg acknowledged that no one was disciplined or demoted after the scheme came to light. In fact, he said, he asked Eric Trump for a $200,000 raise in 2019, which he received.

    To win a conviction, prosecutors need to prove that Weisselberg intended to benefit the Trump entities – exactly what the jury will need to find will be determined by the judge when he gives the case to the jury.

    Weisselberg tread a fine line in his testimony, telling the jury he never wanted to hurt the company – his aim, he said, was mainly to pay less in taxes – but he knew at the time the company would also benefit from his schemes to some extent.

    “It was a benefit to the company but primarily it was due to my greed,” he said.

    Necheles also pushed Weisselberg to acknowledge that prosecutors want him to draw a correlation between his own greed and the tax perks his scheme offered the companies.

    “It is important to the prosecutors for you to testify to that,” she said.

    “I don’t know what’s important to the prosecutors,” Weisselberg said.

    Weisselberg did testify, however, that he and Jeff McConney, Trump Org. controller, never spoke specifically about benefits to the company or calculated how much the company would save as a result of the under reported income.

    “It was understood that by having less payroll you have less payroll taxes,” he said.

    Defense attorney Futerfas suggested the benefit to the Trump entities was minimal. He showed the jury a disbursement journal of Trump Org. expenses, including nearly $54,000 on flowers. The defense attorney compared more than $267 million in expenses over eight years with the roughly $24,000 in payroll taxes the companies did not pay on Weisselberg’s unreported fringe benefits spanning 12 years.

    Despite Weisselberg’s “betrayal” of the Trumps and their companies, the Trump Org. is still footing the bill for his large team of lawyers from multiple firms. His attorneys are some of the best in the city, Susan Hoffinger, the executive assistant district attorney in the Manhattan prosecutor’s office, said on redirect examination.

    Cracking a smile, Weisselberg said: “I hope so.”

    The courtroom dissolved into laughter, including from the judge and some jurors, and the prosecutor turned around smiling at Weisselberg’s legal team sitting in the second row of the gallery.

    Necheles later clarified with the decades-long Trump Org. executive that he stuck by the Trump family through tough years on the brink of bankruptcy.

    “And now you are in the worst time of your life,” Necheles asked.

    “I would say yes,” Weisselberg said.

    “And he has not kicked you to the curb,” she said.

    “He has not,” he responded.

    “You don’t understand that to mean he approves of what you did, do you?” Necheles asked.

    “No,” Weisselberg said.

    The trial has adjourned for the week and will only sit Monday and Tuesday of next week due to the holiday.

    Weisselberg is off the stand, after testifying across three days.

    Source link

  • Elizabeth Holmes scheduled to be sentenced on Friday | CNN Business

    Elizabeth Holmes scheduled to be sentenced on Friday | CNN Business



    CNN
     — 

    Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of failed blood testing startup Theranos who was convicted of fraud earlier this year, is scheduled to be sentenced on Friday morning by a judge in court in San Jose, California.

    Holmes, who was found guilty in January on four charges of defrauding investors, faces up to 20 years in prison as well as a fine of $250,000 plus restitution for each count.

    Lawyers for the government asked for a 15-year prison term, as well as probation and restitution, while Holmes’ probation officer pushed for a nine-year term. Holmes’ defense team asked Judge Edward Davila, who is presiding over her case, to sentence her to up to 18 months of incarceration followed by probation and community service.

    More than 100 people wrote letters in support of Holmes to Davila, asking for leniency in her sentencing. The list includes Holmes’ partner, Billy Evans, many members of Holmes’ and Evans’ families, early Theranos investor Tim Draper, and Sen. Cory Booker. Booker described meeting her at a dinner years before she was charged and bonding over the fact that they were both vegans with nothing to eat but a bag of almonds, which they shared.

    “I still believe that she holds onto the hope that she can make contributions to the lives of others, and that she can, despite mistakes, make the world a better place,” Booker wrote, noting that he continues to consider her a friend.

    Friday’s sentencing hearing caps off Holmes’ stunning downfall. Once hailed as a tech industry icon for her company’s promises to test for a range of conditions with just a few drops of blood, she is now the rare tech founder to be convicted and face prison time for her company’s missteps.

    Holmes, now 38, started Theranos in 2003 at the age of 19 and soon thereafter dropped out of Stanford University to pursue the company full-time. After a decade under the radar, Holmes began courting the press with claims that Theranos had invented technology that could accurately and reliably test for a range of conditions using just a few drops of blood taken from a finger prick.

    Theranos raised $945 million from an impressive list of investors, including media mogul Rupert Murdoch, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, Walmart’s Walton family and the billionaire family of former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. At its peak, Theranos was valued at $9 billion, making Holmes a billionaire on paper. She was lauded on magazine covers, frequently wearing a signature black turtleneck that invited comparisons to late Apple CEO Steve Jobs. (She has not worn that look in the courtroom.)

    The company began to unravel after a Wall Street Journal investigation in 2015 found the company had only ever performed roughly a dozen of the hundreds of tests it offered using its proprietary blood testing device, and with questionable accuracy. Instead, Theranos was relying on third-party manufactured devices from traditional blood testing companies.

    In 2016, Theranos voided two years of blood test results. In 2018, Holmes and Theranos settled “massive fraud” charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but did not admit to or deny any of the allegations as part of the deal. Theranos dissolved soon after.

    In her trial, Holmes alleged she was in the midst of a decade-long abusive relationship with her then-boyfriend and Theranos COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani while running the company. Balwani, she alleged, tried to control nearly every aspect of her life, including disciplining her eating, her voice and her image, and isolating her from others. (Balwani’s attorneys denied her claims.)

    In July, Balwani was found guilty on all 12 charges in a separate trial and faces the same potential maximum prison time as her. Balwani is scheduled to be sentenced on December 7.

    “The effects of Holmes and Balwani’s fraudulent conduct were far-reaching and severe,” federal prosecutors wrote in a November court filing regarding Holmes’ sentencing. “Dozens of investors lost over $700 million and numerous patients received unreliable or wholly inaccurate medical information from Theranos’ flawed tests, placing those patients’ health at serious risk.”

    Holmes’ sentencing, however, could be complicated by developments in her life after stepping down from Theranos. Holmes and her partner, Evans, who met in 2017, have a young son. Holmes is also pregnant, as confirmed by recent court filings and her most recent court appearance in mid October.

    Mark MacDougall, a white-collar defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, told CNN Business that the fact that Holmes has a young child could impact how she is sentenced.

    “I don’t know how it can’t, just because judges are human,” he said.

    MacDougall also said he doesn’t see what a long prison sentence accomplishes. “Elizabeth Holmes is never going to run a big company again,” he said. “She’s never going to be in a position to have something like this happen again.”

    Source link

  • Gabby Giffords still struggles to find words, but she hasn’t lost her voice | CNN

    Gabby Giffords still struggles to find words, but she hasn’t lost her voice | CNN

    Editor’s Note: Dr. Tara Narula is a CNN medical correspondent. She is a board-certified cardiologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and an associate professor of cardiovascular medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell.

    Watch “Gabby Giffords Won’t Back Down” at 9 p.m. ET/PT November 20 on CNN.



    CNN
     — 

    Doctors and public health experts often talk about a bullet as the vector, just as a virus is the vector of transmission in infectious diseases. Both leave a path of destruction as they travel. Families are left to bury loved ones, and survivors may live with chronic injuries that reveal the damage even one bullet can do.

    But some survivors are able to lift their voices for change to keep others from suffering and to shine a light that guides others out of the darkness.

    One of those voices that has spoken up in her own unique way is Gabby Giffords. In 2011, the trajectory of a 9-millimeter bullet through the left side of the brain changed the course of her life. The former congresswoman was one of 13 people wounded in a shooting in an Arizona supermarket parking lot. Six people were killed.

    It’s clear now that she is resilience personified. One step at a time, one word at a time and one day at a time, Gabby has fought to persevere, and her fortitude in the face of tragedy is nothing short of remarkable. She has always seemed to defy the odds, and she does it with grace and her characteristic gentle smile. She has emerged as a leading advocate for gun safety through her own organization, Giffords. But she is also raising awareness around aphasia, a disorder that results from damage to the parts of the brain responsible for language production or processing.

    Obama shares what he’s learned from Gabby Giffords

    I met Gabby before the debut of the CNN documentary “Gabby Giffords Won’t Back Down,” a detailed portrayal of the inner fire that helped her heal and pushes her to help others do the same. The day we met, she gave me a big hug outside the small room where I would observe her and four others during their speech therapy session with Dr. Fabiane Hirsch Kruse – Fabi, as they call her.

    Inside the therapy room, Gabby sat around a circular table with Christina, Brian, Matt and Andy, each of them working on exercises designed to help with their aphasia. Fabi asked them to share when they first had their brain injury, how physically active they are and a series of other questions designed to improve their language skills. Often, the answers were single words or the wrong words, or they took several minutes. Sometimes, the answers did not come at all.

    Aphasia can be isolating and often misinterpreted. Friends of Aphasia – the nonprofit founded by Gabby and Fabi – teaches that loss of words does not mean loss of intelligence.

    “It’s just because of the injury to the brain,” Fabi told me. “It has nothing to do with their ability to think through their thoughts, know who they are, be the wonderful people they are.”

    Gabby said she loves to talk; she just can’t get the words out.

    “I’m Gabby,” she said, her voice bright and energetic. “I’m so quiet now.”

    But while the therapy room could have been filled with frustration, instead I saw a room filled with vulnerability, humor and camaraderie. When asked her favorite thing about coming to the aphasia group, one member, Christina, said “hope, hope, hope.”

    As Gabby put it in the documentary, “Words once came easily. Today, I struggle to speak, but I’ve not lost my voice.”

    Therapy for aphasia is tailored to the individual, and recovery can look different for everyone. But one hallmark of treatment is work with a speech therapist; Gabby and Fabi have worked together since 2013.

    For Gabby, therapy is “a lot of homework.” She is always asking for more. Gabby and Fabi are working hard on perfecting Gabby’s ability to deliver more public speeches and interviews.

    Part of what has kept Gabby going has also been music. It has been an integral part of her life since her youth, when she was singing in musicals and playing the French horn, and now it’s an important part of her therapy. For people with aphasia, anything practiced – a prayer, a poem or a song – can be an accessible way to express themselves.

    I asked Gabby whether she had a favorite song, and within seconds she belted, loud and clear, the verses of one of my favorite songs.

    “Almost heaven, West Virginia … country roads, take me home to the place I belong,” she sang while Fabi danced along to “Take Me Home, Country Roads.”

    As a cardiologist, I see many patients who have traumatic, life-changing events like heart attack or stroke, and I often urge them not to not look too far ahead. Instead, take one small step at a time and find their way back to themselves and to a sense of peace.

    What people don’t realize, Fabi said, is that Gabby is a daredevil and absolutely fearless. Moving forward is the only way she knows – before on horseback, motorcycle and bicycle, and now on a trike. She has what Fabi describes as a “beautiful relationship” with her best friend and husband, Sen. Mark Kelly, who has been by her side supporting her each day. She doesn’t let anything get her down, Fabi said, and they laugh in every session.

    gabby giffords introduces mark kelly origseriesfilms 4_00003418.png

    ‘Her charisma still comes through’: Congressman on Giffords

    “For me, it has been really important to move ahead, to not look back,” Gabby told me. “I hope others are inspired to keep moving forward, no matter what.”

    In the film, one of Gabby’s colleagues says many who meet her are “Gabbified,” and now I understand exactly what that means. She has a sparkle and warmth that radiate from somewhere deep inside and a sense of calm and playfulness in her demeanor.

    During our interview, when the cameras were about to start rolling, she leaned over and fixed my hair, and it was apparent that she is a natural caretaker. Her compassion comes through in her eyes, which speak much of what her voice at times cannot.

    Gabby told me she feels optimistic, but she knows that she has a long road ahead. For the documentary, they’d asked how long Gabby thought she and Fabi would work together. Gabby told them “rocking chairs”: a phrase to mean a long time from now, when they’re sitting on the porch in old, worn rocking chairs.

    At the end of our interview, Gabby and I took a brief walk outside her home. As she held my hand, I could feel both her fragility and her strength. The road for Gabby Giffords has not been easy, but she has not backed down as she continues advancing her own recovery and advocating around both gun violence and aphasia awareness.

    I asked, is her fight about reclaiming the old Gabby or discovering a new one?

    Gabby answered that it’s about the new one – “better, stronger, tougher.”

    She walks tall, proud and determined to get the most out of life, both superhuman and down-to-earth at the same time.

    Source link

  • Asia must not become arena for ‘big power contest,’ says China’s Xi as APEC summit gets underway | CNN

    Asia must not become arena for ‘big power contest,’ says China’s Xi as APEC summit gets underway | CNN


    Bangkok, Thailand
    CNN
     — 

    Chinese leader Xi Jinping has stressed the need to reject confrontation in Asia, warning against the risk of cold war tensions, as leaders gather for the last of three world summits hosted in the region this month.

    Xi began the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders’ summit in Bangkok by staking out his wish for China to be viewed as a driver of regional unity in a written speech released ahead of Friday’s opening day – which also appeared to make veiled jabs at the United States.

    The Asia-Pacific region is “no one’s backyard” and should not become “an arena for big power contest,” Xi said in the statement, in which he also decried “any attempt to politicize and weaponize economic and trade relations.”

    “No attempt to wage a new cold war will ever be allowed by the people or by our times,” he added in the remarks, which were addressed to business leaders meeting alongside the summit and did not name the US.

    Xi struck a milder tone in a separate address to APEC leaders on Friday morning as the main event got underway, calling for stability, peace and the development of a “more just world order.”

    Leaders and representatives from 21 economies on both sides of the Pacific meeting in the Thai capital for the two-day summit will grapple with that question of how best to promote stability, in a region sitting on the fault lines of growing US-China competition and grappling with regional tensions and the economic fallout of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

    Those challenges were palpable Friday morning, as North Korea launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the second weapons test by Kim Jong Un’s regime in two days amid increased provocation from Pyongyang.

    US Vice President Kamala Harris gathered on the sidelines of the summit with leaders from Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Canada to condemn the launch in an unscheduled media briefing.

    In a speech Friday to business leaders, Harris said the US had a “profound stake” in the region, and described America as a “strong partner” to its economies and a “major engine of global growth.”

    Without mentioning China in her address, she also promoted American initiatives to counter Beijing’s regional influence, including the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, launched by Washington earlier this year, and the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment.

    “The US is here to stay,” said the vice president, who is representing the US at the summit after US President Joe Biden returned home for a family event after attending meetings around the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Phnom Penh, Cambodia and the G20 summit in Bali in recent days.

    Despite the US-China rivalry, the three summits have also brought opportunities to defuse rising tensions and strained communication between the world’s top two powers.

    US-China relations have deteriorated sharply in recent years, with the two sides clashing over Taiwan, the war in Ukraine, North Korea, and the transfer of technology among other issues.

    In August, following a visit by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, China fired multiple missiles into waters around the self-governing island and ramped up naval and warplane exercises in the surrounding area. Beijing claims the democratic island as its territory, despite never having controlled it, and suspended a number of dialogues with the US over the visit.

    A landmark meeting between Xi and Biden on the sidelines of the G20 in Bali on Monday – the leaders’ first since Biden took office – ended with the two sides agreeing to bolster communication and collaborate on issues like climate and food security.

    After landing in Bangkok Thursday, Chinese leader Xi sat down with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, in the first meeting between leaders of the two Asian countries in nearly three years. Both sides called for more cooperation following a breakdown in communication over points of contention from Taiwan to disputed islands.

    At stake in the broader meeting, however, is whether leaders can find consensus on how to treat Russia’s aggression in a concluding document, or whether differences in views between the broad grouping of nations will stymie such a result, despite months of discussion between APEC nations’ lower-level officials.

    In an address to business leaders alongside the summit Friday morning, French President Emmanuel Macron, who was invited by host country Thailand, called for consensus and unity against Moscow’s aggression.

    “Help us to convey the same message to Russia: stop the war, respect the international order and come back to the table,” he said.

    Macron also called out the US-China rivalry, warning of the risk to peace if countries are forced to choose between the two great powers.

    “We need a single global order,” Macron said to applause from business leaders.

    Source link

  • Opinion: There’s a reason AOC and Amy Klobuchar are getting loud about this | CNN

    Opinion: There’s a reason AOC and Amy Klobuchar are getting loud about this | CNN

    Editor’s Note: Amy Bass (@bassab1) is professor of sport studies at Manhattanville College and the author of “One Goal: A Coach, a Team, and the Game That Brought a Divided Town Together” and “Not the Triumph but the Struggle: The 1968 Olympics and the Making of the Black Athlete,” among other titles. The views expressed here are solely hers. Read more opinion on CNN.



    CNN
     — 

    In the midst of the Taylor Swift ticket mania that has dominated my life – and the lives of millions of others – for the past week or so, I keep thinking about how my mother, when I was just 15 years old, lied to get me into a Ramones show at a theater in Albany, New York, so many years ago.

    She drove me and my friend to the show with the intention of reading a good book in the parking lot, but ended up coming in with us when we got stopped at the door for being underage and without ID. After we finally got in, a lovely bouncer took one look at us and said to my mother, “You can go back there and hang out – I’ll keep my eye on them.”

    While I remember every detail of that epic show, perhaps especially the moment when Joey Ramone handed me a guitar pick, more important to me now is the heroic example of parenting set by my mom.

    Now, flash forward more decades than I am willing to admit, I’m the mom of the 15-year-old concert-goer, navigating the world of tickets, transportation, and “merch,” and advising on how best to spend hard-won babysitting money. I am lucky that I am not alone in this endeavor, as my lifetime bestie, the one I’ve seen more shows with than anyone, has her own high school girl. The four of us, together, are now concert buddies.

    It has been an amazing experience. I loved every second of watching our girls battle for position in the pit at Harry Styles’ show while we watched from the bar (pro tip: there is no line at the Madison Square Garden bar at a Harry Styles concert). Eventually we, too, joined the cacophony of feather boas and sequins that comprise Harry’s House, marveling at his connection with his audience and the diversity and strong community that is his fan base.

    Indeed, just as we once joined the thousands of voices walking out of a U2 show singing “40” long after the band had left the building, our girls are part of a generation of fans that seems to look out for one another, with special shout outs to the young woman who entered the MSG bathroom and announced that she was at “Harry’s House” by herself and the legion of folks who instantly yelled, “Hang with us!” – no questions asked.

    While all of it feels worth it, none of it is easy, exemplified by the legions of parents and fans who are unable to get tickets to these shows, whether because of exorbitant pricing strategies or limited and unfair access.

    When Taylor Swift dropped “Midnights” on October 21 at, well, midnight, and then provided another version, “Midnights (3am Edition),” three hours later, I knew that school was not going to be easy for millions of kids the next day. Indeed, midnight album drops – especially when there is a test the next day – are a virtual party for our kids, making me hope that Swift’s next album might be entitled “Saturday Afternoon,” or something to that effect.

    When Swift announced the Eras Tour on November 1, a pit of apprehension grew in my stomach. Her first tour since 2018, her oeuvre now includes so much material that she has never played live, with so many fans who have never really had a chance to see her. My one experience with Ticketmaster’s “verified fan” process, designed, allegedly, to keep out scalpers, had gone badly; I got the email telling me I was chosen, but I never got the text with the code.

    My experience the week before Taylor Tuesday furthered my doubt in the system: Ticketmaster crashed twice in my attempt to get tickets to Louis Tomlinson, a star with nowhere near the kind of fanbase to rival “Swifties.” Each time I threw “general admission” tickets into my cart – no seat assigned – it told me that another fan had “grabbed” them and I needed to try again. How could that be, I wondered, if the tickets were general admission?

    Alas, it didn’t matter: for Taylor Swift, I got waitlisted, whatever that means. My sister got waitlisted. My niece got waitlisted. But, lo and behold, my bestie came through.

    “I got a code,” she texted. “I got a code.”

    We knew it would still be hard. Really, really hard. But we have been doing this, together, for so long. Back in the day, it wasn’t online codes – we slept out in front of record stores and in parking lots, getting precious wristbands to keep our place in line while hoping for the best seats we could grab for Prince, U2, and Def Leppard. Once, on a particularly cold morning, my social studies teacher showed up with doughnuts for all of us; he cheered once we had tickets in hand.

    Getting tickets today is a far more solitary experience that revolves around laptops and phones – computerized and mechanized with virtual waiting rooms and queues, and the so-called dynamic pricing system that Ticketmaster uses to vary ticket prices according to demand. We combed Tik Tok and Twitter for tips and hacks, appreciating the posts by those who expressed stress over being the only member of a friend group who got a code. We had already cleared our Tuesday morning calendars, and we were prepared to battle, knowing that an online bookie site had estimated approximately 2.8 million Eras tickets would be sold, which gave us a marginally better but still miniscule shot at getting tickets.

    “Good luck – don’t hesitate but also take ur time but also be super quick. I believe in you,” her daughter texted a few minutes before the presale went live.

    No pressure there. No pressure at all.

    In short, she got them. They aren’t great seats, they aren’t on the night we wanted, and she had to deal with a “sit tight, we’re securing your Verified Tickets” message uncountable times before finally getting an email confirmation in her inbox. But as news emerged at what transpired across the day, we felt as lucky as mothers could feel, especially as heartbroken fans and their parents began to share their experiences – tickets snatched out of their carts, the website crashing, and error code after error code flashing on people’s screens.

    “I’m officially done telling anyone I have tickets to Taylor Swift,” a neighbor – the only other person I know who got tickets – texted me. “I feel like I might get mugged in the street.”

    While Ticketmaster shrugged off initial outrage on Tuesday by declaring “unprecedented historic demand” and thanking fans for their “patience,” people began to ask questions. Why issue more codes than tickets? Why create more entry points than capacity?

    So as I plan on staying in the trenches with my kid, trying to support her love for music the way my mother did for me, change has to be on the horizon for the unrestrained monopoly that sells concert tickets to teenagers. With “Swifties” getting increasingly angry at the star herself – a generational artist, indeed, who has already had such an impact on the industry as a whole – on Tik Tok, often quoting “I’ve never heard silence quite this loud” from the song, “The Story of Us,” some legislators, from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, are getting loud about the problem.

    “Ticketmaster’s power in the primary ticket market insulates it from the competitive pressures that typically push companies to innovate and improve their services,” Klobuchar, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, wrote in an open letter to Michael Rapino, CEO of Live Nation Entertainment (which oversees Ticketmaster). “That can result in the types of dramatic service failures we saw this week, where consumers are the ones that pay the price.”

    That price just went up, way up. When Ticketmaster announced the cancellation of the scheduled public sale for the Eras Tour on Thursday, claiming “insufficient inventory” after a “staggering number of bot attacks” during the presale, my heart broke for the thousands upon thousands of fans now officially left empty-handed, and the parents and grandparents and friends who tried so hard to get them there.

    I had those days, too – returning home because spending a night in a parking lot wasn’t enough to get me a ticket to the show.

    We have to do better.

    Source link

  • Inside the White House’s months of prep-work for a GOP investigative onslaught | CNN Politics

    Inside the White House’s months of prep-work for a GOP investigative onslaught | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    More than four months before voters handed Republicans control of the House of Representatives, top White House and Department of Homeland Security officials huddled in the Roosevelt Room to prepare for that very scenario.  

    The department and its secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, had emerged as top targets of Republican ire over the Biden administration’s border security policies – ire that is certain to fuel aggressive congressional investigations with Republicans projected to narrowly reclaim the House majority and the subpoena power that comes with it.  

    Sitting around the large conference table in the Roosevelt Room, White House lawyers probed senior DHS officials about their preparations for the wide-ranging Republican oversight they had begun to anticipate, including Republicans’ stated plans to impeach Mayorkas, two sources familiar with the meeting said.  

    Convened by Richard Sauber, a veteran white-collar attorney hired in May to oversee the administration’s response to congressional oversight, the meeting was one of several the White House has held since the summer with lawyers from across the administration – including the Defense Department, State Department and Justice Department.

    The point, people familiar with the effort said, has been to ensure agencies are ready for the coming investigative onslaught  and to coordinate an administration-wide approach. 

    While President Joe Biden and Democrats campaigned to preserve their congressional majorities, a small team of attorneys, communications strategists and legislative specialists have spent the past few months holed up in Washington preparing for the alternative, two administration officials said.  

    The preparations, largely run out of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building near the White House, are among the earliest and most comprehensive by any administration ahead of a midterm election and highlight how far-reaching and aggressive Republican investigations are expected to be.

    Along with Sauber, this spring the White House hired veteran Democratic communications aide Ian Sams as spokesman for the White House counsel’s office. Top Biden adviser Anita Dunn returned to the White House in the spring, in part to oversee the administration’s preparations for a GOP-controlled Congress.

    The Justice Department is also bracing for investigations, bringing in well-known government transparency attorney Austin Evers to help respond to legislative oversight. Evers is the founder of the group American Oversight and served as its executive director until this year, and previously handled the oversight response at the State Department.

     The White House is preparing to hire additional lawyers and other staff to beef up its oversight response team in the next two months, before the new Congress convenes in January, administration officials said. The hires will bolster Sauber’s current team of about 10 lawyers, a source familiar with the matter said.

    In piecing together GOP targets and strategy, the team has paid close attention to Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and James Comer of Kentucky, the two Republicans who are likely to lead much of the investigations under a GOP-controlled House and have spent months telegraphing their intentions in TV interviews and oversight letters.   

    Jim Jordan and James Comer.

    Their opening salvo came Thursday, when Comer and Jordan hosted a joint news conference to preview the various investigations into President Joe Biden’s family.  

    “In the 118th Congress, this committee will evaluate the status of Joe Biden’s relationship with his family’s foreign partners and whether he is a president who is compromised or swayed by foreign dollars and influence” said Comer, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee. “I want to be clear: This is an investigation of Joe Biden, and that’s where the committee will focus in this next Congress.”

    Comer, flanked by Jordan and other Republicans on the Oversight Committee, said Republicans have made connections between the president’s son, Hunter Biden, and the president whom they believe requires further investigation. 

    The White House accused Comer of pursuing “long-debunked conspiracy theories.”

    Even though the Republican majority is poised to be much thinner than expected – with a likely margin of just a couple seats – all indications are that House Republicans are poised to push ahead with a wide-ranging set of investigations into all corners of the Biden administration, including the messy US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Covid-19 vaccine mandates and the Justice Department’s handling of the various investigations related to Donald Trump. 

    Republicans are also intent on investigating the president’s family, particularly his son, Hunter Biden. 

    With little chance of passing much legislation in a deadlocked Congress, investigations are shaping up to be the focal point of how a House Republican majority wields its power.  

    “You’re gonna have a bunch of chairmen who are totally on their own, doing whatever the hell they want without regard for what the national political implications are,” said Brendan Buck, a former top adviser to House Speaker Paul Ryan, who said he believes GOP leader Kevin McCarthy will have “very little leash” to rein in those investigative pursuits.  

    House Republicans have already sent over 500 letters to the administration requesting that they preserve documents, key committees have hired new legal counsels to help with investigations, and leadership has hosted classes for staffers on how to best use the oversight tools at their disposal.

    Meanwhile, McCarthy’s office has been working with likely committee chairs over the last several months to delegate who is going to be investigating what, according to a source familiar with the matter. 

    “It’s like a clearing house,” the source said. 

    But the GOP’s push for aggressive investigations could run into resistance from the moderate wing of the GOP, who want to use their newfound majority to address key legislative priorities – not just pummel Hunter Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci. While McCarthy has vowed to conduct rigorous oversight, he will have to strike a delicate balance between the demands of the competing factions in his party.

    White House officials believe Republicans are bound to overstep and that their investigative overreach will backfire with the American public. In the meantime, they are prepared to push back forcefully, believing that many proposed investigations are based on conspiracy theories and politically motivated charges.

    “President Biden is not going to let these political attacks distract him from focusing on Americans’ priorities, and we hope congressional Republicans will join us in tackling them instead of wasting time and resources on political revenge,” Sams, the spokesman for the White House counsel’s office, said in a statement to CNN. 

    The House’s expected razor-thin majority is likely to make it more difficult to take steps like impeaching members of Biden’s Cabinet – or even the president himself. But that doesn’t mean, sources told CNN, they’re not going to try, particularly when it comes to the border and Mayorkas.  

    Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas testifies before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, on Capitol Hill on May 04, 2022.

    On Tuesday, the House Homeland Security Committee provided a preview of what is to come. Over the course of a marathon four-hour hearing, Republican lawmakers grilled Mayorkas over the influx of migrants at the southern border, the number of people who evade Border Patrol capture, and encounters with people on the border who are on the terror watch list. 

    Throughout, Mayorkas stood his ground, maintaining that the border is “secure” and batting down criticism that it’s “open” as Republicans have claimed. 

    At one point, Republican Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana foreshadowed more testimony next year, telling Mayorkas: “We look forward to seeing you in January.”  

    Mayorkas, officials said, remains undeterred by the threats of impeachment and intends to stay at the helm of the department, a point he reiterated Tuesday. Still, one person close to Mayorkas told CNN that the DHS chief is “nervous” about impending GOP investigations and the potential of being continually hauled before Congress by hostile Republican committee chairs. 

    “Don’t let the bastards win,” one US official familiar with Mayorkas’ thinking said when asked to sum up the DHS chief’s attitude toward potential GOP investigations on border issues and impeachment.   

    “We will respond to legitimate inquiries,” the official said. “We’re not going to feed into what might wind up as kabuki theater.”  

    DHS already responds to hundreds of congressional inquiries per month, according to a Homeland Security official, who added the department has been preparing for months for any potential increase in congressional activity. The department is also ready to “aggressively respond to attempts to mischaracterize the strong record” of the DHS work force, as well as “politically motivated attempts to attack the secretary,” the official said.

    DHS officials considered hiring outside legal counsel to prepare for the potential onslaught of Republican scrutiny but ultimately chose not to, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.   Ricki Seidman, a senior counselor to Mayorkas and former senior Justice Department official, has been involved in DHS’s preparation for the GOP oversight, the source added.

     Another Homeland Security official said that the Border Patrol along with Customs and Border Protection “are going to take the most heat.” 

    The most politically charged investigations next year are poised to be those into the president’s son Hunter Biden.  

    Top Republicans have largely been more than happy for Comer to take on the leading role of investigating Hunter Biden, multiple sources said.  Jordan does not plan to be intimately involved in the Hunter Biden probe but will provide public support for Comer, including appearing with him at the upcoming press conference.  

    “We’re going to lay out what we have thus far on Hunter Biden, and the crimes we believe he has committed,” Comer told CNN earlier this month just before the election. “And then we’re going to be very clear and say what we are investigating, and who we’re gonna ask to meet with us for transcribed interviews.”

    Hunter Biden has denied wrongdoing in his business activities.

    Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, attends a ceremony at the White House on Thursday, July 7, 2022.

    Behind the scenes though, Jordan and other soon-to-be powerful Republican lawmakers – including likely chairman of House Intelligence Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio – have sought to distance their committees from the Hunter Biden investigation in favor of other investigative pursuits they deem to be “more serious,” the sources said. 

    The handling of Republican investigations related to Hunter Biden will fall to Hunter Biden’s own attorneys, while Bob Bauer, the president’s personal attorney, will handle related matters related to Joe Biden’s personal capacity that do not touch on his official duties. Bauer, who is married to Dunn, and White House attorneys have already met to divvy up workflow over potential lines of inquiries to ensure there are clear lanes of responsibility between investigations that touch on Joe Biden’s official role as president and vice president and his personal life. 

    Another key point of interest is likely to be the administration’s handling of the August 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, which led to the death of 13 Marines and nearly 200 Afghans when a bomb exploded at the Kabul airport.  

    At the State Department, a small group of officials has already begun planning for the coming investigations into Afghanistan, officials said. While that group will work with Sauber’s team at the White House, State Department officials expect to take the lead in handling GOP inquiries into Afghanistan.     

    The department has not hired new people to work on these efforts, but certain officials who are already at the department expect to spend a lot more of their time responding to the congressional inquiries, officials said.  

    The Republican investigation into the withdrawal is likely to be led by Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs committee. McCaul and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have historically had a good relationship, which State Department officials are hoping will be an important factor.

    US soldiers stand guard behind barbed wire as Afghans sit on a roadside near the military part of the airport in Kabul on August 20, 2021

    Administration officials said they plan to take McCaul’s inquiry seriously because they expect he will demonstrate a seriousness of purpose, instead of making bombastic demands like some other Republicans. And House Republican aides said they plan to explore the administration’s willingness to work with them before issuing subpoenas.

    “If they’ll meet us in the middle by giving us some documents instead of all documents, or agreeing to turn over certain individuals but not all of the individuals for interviews, then that’s a start,” said one of the GOP aides familiar with the plans. “But if they just want to be completely obstructive and say no to every single request, then you’ll see subpoenas fairly soon.”

    The department concluded its own review of the withdrawal in March, but the findings of that report have not been shared publicly, officials said. While it was expected to be put out earlier this year, State Department officials said the White House is making that determination, and they are unsure of where that decision stands. House Republicans want to see that report.

    At the Pentagon, officials are bracing for the possibility of public grilling at televised hearings on everything from Afghanistan to views about “wokeness” in the force and the discharging of troops who refused to take the Covid-19 vaccine. 

    “We know it’s coming,” one administration official said. 

     Both Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose term expires at the end of September 2023, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who appears determined to stay until the end of the Biden administration, have faced sharp criticism from congressional Republicans and know the coming months may be a rough political ride, officials said.    

    Milley has been a particular target for Republicans for his well-known efforts to keep the final weeks of the Trump presidency from careening into a national security crisis. 

    Both Milley and Austin have pushed back forcefully on GOP accusations that the military is “woke,” a topic that’s likely to become a focal point for some Republicans in the coming months.

    “This is going to be a Congress under Republican control like no other,” said Rafi Prober, a congressional investigations specialist with the law firm Akin Gump who previously worked in the Obama administration.    

    Aaron Cutler, the head of the Washington government investigations group at law firm Hogan Lovells and a former Republican congressional leadership staffer, said the partisan investigations serve to “feed the base red meat.”

    But Cutler said he has heard from conservatives that the tepid result for Republicans in the midterm elections may translate to less “silliness in politics,” he said. “The American people are pushing back, and saying we want government to work.”   

    That is exactly the calculation the White House and congressional Democrats are making. A senior House Democratic source said that aggressive attacks on Biden’s son could backfire, adding that congressional Democrats were gearing up to defend the president by calling out “lies and hypocrisy.”

    Still, with the GOP investigations in mind, a team of White House lawyers has in recent weeks and months advised senior White House staff on how “not to be seen as influencing politically sensitive missions at (departments and agencies),” a source familiar with the matter told CNN.  

    Asked at his press conference last week about the prospect of GOP investigations, including into his son, Biden said: “I think the American people will look at all of that for what it is. It’s just almost comedy. … Look, I can’t control what they’re going to do.”

    This story has been updated with comments from Rep. Comer on Thursday.

    Source link

  • Nancy Pelosi announces she won’t run for leadership post, marking the end of an era | CNN Politics

    Nancy Pelosi announces she won’t run for leadership post, marking the end of an era | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Thursday that she will relinquish her leadership post, after leading House Democrats for two decades, building a legacy as one of the most powerful and polarizing figures in American politics.

    Pelosi, the first and only woman to serve as speaker, said that she would continue to serve in the House, giving the next generation the opportunity to lead the House Democrats, who will be in the minority next year despite a better-than-expected midterm election performance.

    “I will not seek reelection to Democratic leadership in the next Congress,” said Pelosi in the House chamber. “For me, the hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic caucus that I so deeply respect, and I’m grateful that so many are ready and willing to shoulder this awesome responsibility.”

    Pelosi, 82, rose to the top of the House Democratic caucus in 2002, after leading many in her party against a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. She then guided Democrats as they rode the waves of popular opinion, seeing their power swell to a 257-seat majority after the 2008 elections, ultimately crash to a 188-seat minority, and then rise once again.

    Her political career was marked by an extraordinary ability to understand and overcome those political shifts, keeping conflicting factions of her party united in passing major legislation. She earned the Speaker’s gavel twice – after the 2006 and 2018 elections – and lost it after the 2010 elections.

    Of late, she has conducted a string of accomplishments with one of the slimmest party splits in history, passing a $1.9 trillion pandemic aid package last year and a $750 billion health care, energy and climate bill in August.

    Her legislative victories in the Biden era cemented her reputation as one of the most successful party leaders in Congress. During the Obama administration, Pelosi was instrumental to the passage of the massive economic stimulus bill and the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which provides over 35 million Americans health care coverage.

    Over the past 20 years, the California liberal has been relentlessly attacked by Republicans, who portray her as the personification of a party for the coastal elite. “We have fired Nancy Pelosi,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Fox News on Wednesday, after Republicans won back the chamber.

    In recent years, the anger directed toward her has turned menacing. During the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, pro-Trump rioters searched for her — and last month, a male assailant attacked Paul Pelosi, the speaker’s husband, with a hammer at the couple’s home in San Francisco, while she was in Washington.

    Pelosi told CNN’s Anderson Cooper this month that her decision to retire would be influenced by the politically motivated attack. Paul Pelosi was released from the hospital two weeks ago after surgery to repair a skull fracture and injuries to his arm and hands.

    After thanking her colleagues for their well-wishes for Paul, the House chamber broke out into a standing ovation.

    Pelosi’s long reign became a source of tension within her own party. She won the gavel after the 2018 elections by promising her own party that she would leave her leadership post by 2022.

    Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, who previously tried to oust Pelosi, told CNN it’s time for a new chapter.

    “She’s a historic speaker who’s accomplished an incredible amount, but I also think there are a lot of Democrats ready for a new chapter,” said Moulton.

    But some Democrats praised Pelosi and said they wished she would remain leader. Asked about her decision, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer clutched his chest and said he had pleaded with her to stay.

    “I told her when she called me and told me this and all that, I said ‘please change your mind. We need you here,’” Schumer said.

    House Democrats appear likely to choose New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, 52, to succeed Pelosi as leader, though Democrats won’t vote until November 30.

    After her speech, Pelosi wouldn’t tell reporters who’d she support. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn announced they would also step down from their leadership posts, and endorsed Jeffries to succeed Pelosi. Hoyer said Jeffries “will make history for the institution of the House and for our country.” Clyburn added that he hoped Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark and California Rep. Pete Aguilar would join Jeffries in House Democratic leadership.

    Before Pelosi’s announcement, Ohio Rep. Joyce Beatty, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told CNN that she expects her caucus to throw their support behind Jeffries, and help him become the first Black House Democratic leader.

    “If she steps aside, I’m very clear that Hakeem Jeffries is the person that I will be voting for and leading the Congressional Black Caucus to vote for,” said Beatty.”I don’t always speak for everybody, but I’m very comfortable saying I believe that every member of the Congressional Black Caucus would vote for Hakeem Jeffries.”

    Retiring North Carolina Rep. G.K. Butterfield, a former CBC chairman, told CNN that Jeffries “is prepared for the moment” if Pelosi steps aside. Butterfield said he thought Jeffries would run.

    The longtime Democratic leader told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” on Sunday that members of her caucus had asked her to “consider” running in the party’s leadership elections at the end of the month, adding: “But, again, let’s just get through the election.”

    Any decision to run again, Pelosi said, “is about family, and also my colleagues and what we want to do is go forward in a very unified way, as we go forward to prepare for the Congress at hand.”

    “Nonetheless, a great deal is at stake because we’ll be in a presidential election. So my decision will again be rooted in the wishes of my family and the wishes of my caucus,” she continued. “But none of it will be very much considered until we see what the outcome of all of this is. And there are all kinds of ways to exert influence.”

    Pelosi is a towering figure in American politics with a history-making legacy of shattering glass ceilings as the first and so far only woman to be speaker of the US House of Representatives.

    Pelosi was first elected to the House in 1987, when she won a special election to fill a seat representing California’s 5th Congressional District.

    When she was first elected speaker, Pelosi reflected on the significance of the event and what it meant for women in the United States.

    “This is an historic moment,” she said in a speech after accepting the speaker’s gavel. “It’s an historic moment for the Congress. It’s an historic moment for the women of America.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments Thursday.

    Source link

  • Taylor Swift ticket snafu caused by Ticketmaster abusing its market power, Senate antitrust chair says | CNN Business

    Taylor Swift ticket snafu caused by Ticketmaster abusing its market power, Senate antitrust chair says | CNN Business


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    Senator Amy Klobuchar criticized Ticketmaster in an open letter to its CEO, saying she has “serious concerns” about the company’s operations following a service meltdown Tuesday that left Taylor Swift fans irate.

    In the letter to CEO Michael Rapino, the Democrat from Minnesota and chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, wrote that complaints from Swift fans unable to buy tickets for her upcoming tour, in addition to criticism about high fees, suggests that the company “continues to abuse its market positions.”

    “Ticketmaster’s power in the primary ticket market insulates it from the competitive pressures that typically push companies to innovate and improve their services. That can result in the types of dramatic service failures we saw this week, where consumers are the ones that pay the price,” Klobuchar wrote.

    Ticketmaster and Live Nation, the country’s largest concert promoter, merged about a decade ago. Klobuchar noted that the company at the time pledged to “develop an easy-access, one-stop platform” for ticket delivery. On Thursday, the senator told Rapino that it “appears that your confidence was misplaced.”

    “When Ticketmaster merged with Live Nation in 2010, it was subject to an antitrust consent decree that prohibited it from abusing its market position,” Klobuchar wrote. “Nonetheless, there have been numerous complaints about your company’s compliance with that decree.”

    The letter includes a list of questions for Rapino to answer by next week. Ticketmaster did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNN Business.

    On Tuesday, the company said “there has been historically unprecedented demand with millions showing up” to buy tickets for Swift’s tour and thanked fans for their “patience.”

    Klobuchar is the latest high-profile politician to openly criticize Ticketmaster for the ticketing disaster that left bad blood between Swift fans and the company.

    “@Ticketmaster’s excessive wait times and fees are completely unacceptable, as seen with today’s @taylorswift13 tickets, and are a symptom of a larger problem. It’s no secret that Live Nation-Ticketmaster is an unchecked monopoly,” Rep. David Cicilline, currently the chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee, tweeted on Tuesday.

    “Daily reminder that Ticketmaster is a monopoly, its merger with LiveNation should never have been approved, and they need to be reined in,” tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    Complaints about the company’s monopoly power go back long, long before Tuesday’s ticket problems, when the platform appeared to crash or freeze during presale purchases for Swift’s latest tour.

    In 1994, when Taylor Swift was only four years old and ticket purchase queues were in person or on the phone, not online, the rock group Pearl Jam filed a complaint with the Justice Department’s antitrust division asserting that Ticketmaster has a “virtually absolute monopoly on the distribution of tickets to concerts.” It tried to book its tour only at venues that didn’t use Ticketmaster.

    The Justice Department and many state attorneys general have made similar complaints over the years.

    Despite those concerns, Ticketmaster continued to grow more dominant. Pearl Jam’s complaint was quietly dismissed. The Justice Department and states allowed the Live Nation Ticketmaster merger to go through despite a 2010 court filing in the case raising objections to the merger. In the filing, the Justice Department said that Ticketmaster’s share among major concert venues exceeded 80%.

    – CNN Business’ Chris Isidore contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Border ‘invasion’ declaration panned as PR stunt | CNN Politics

    Border ‘invasion’ declaration panned as PR stunt | CNN Politics

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



    CNN
     — 

    America’s duct-taped immigration policy, which successive Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses have all failed to fix in a comprehensive way, is about to be ripped in yet another direction.

    • With CNN projecting Republicans will take control of the House in January, Democrats want to use the last gasp of their House majority to make good on a yearslong effort to give certainty to hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children.
    • Some Republicans, meanwhile, are using the language of war and aiming to make the situation at the southern border a key part of their platform once their party seizes the megaphone of a House majority.
    • A federal judge invalidated a Covid-era policy left over from the Trump administration that has been used to expel migrants millions of times in recent years.
    • US Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Chris Magnus was forced out of his role last week by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
    • The move will do little to quiet the criticism of Mayorkas by Republicans. They’ve promised to target him and his agency with scrutiny and investigations when they take the House majority next term.

    ‘Invasion.’ Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, fresh from a commanding election win in last week’s midterms and keen to be viewed as the border security governor, said he would invoke a clause of the US Constitution and declare an “invasion” at the southern border.

    While he has used the term “invasion” before, his tweet suggested he would do more to militarize his state’s response and step in where he says the Biden administration has failed.

    Former President Donald Trump also returned to that term – “invasion” – in announcing his latest run for the White House.

    “Our southern border has been erased,” he said falsely, “and our country is being invaded by millions and millions of unknown people.”

    Abbott argued his declaration would invoke a clause in the Constitution that gives states extraordinary power.

    That text, from Article I, Section 10, reads like this:

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    That Abbott and others are equating a stream of unarmed migrants with an invading army is a case of major false equivalence. They also point to drugs that come across the border with Mexico and the drug cartels behind the illicit activity as a major problem.

    There is no invading army. Rather than marauding troops, CNN’s many profiles of migrants have found families fleeing poverty, climate change, persecution and violence, and approaching the US border after a treacherous trek, often on foot, across the Darien Gap linking South and Central America.

    The Biden administration, following in the Trump administration’s footsteps, has sought to deter migrants, particularly from Venezuela, who have increased exponentially in recent years.

    Judge ends Title 42. A federal judge on Tuesday ended a Trump-era Covid-19 policy, which had been maintained by the Biden administration, to expel many border crossers from the country. In response to a request from the administration, the judge stayed his ruling Wednesday for five weeks to allow the administration to prepare.

    The DC judge, Emmet Sullivan, called that policy “arbitrary and capricious” and said it was flawed from the get-go.

    CNN’s Catherine Shoichet has an in-depth look at the policy, which has been used to expel migrants nearly 2.5 million times under the two presidents over the past three years. That language is important – many of those expelled under the policy have been expelled more than once.

    Reporting from the Texas border. CNN’s Rosa Flores is based in Texas and has reported from the region.

    “We’ve covered stories on the Mexican side of the border where thousands of migrants have been waiting for Title 42 to lift,” she told me in an email. “The anxiety and angst have been building on the border for years now.”

    The uncertainty about US policy has only amplified the desperation of people trying to get into the US, Flores told me.

    “The net effect of the US immigration policy has been very dangerous for migrants/asylum-seekers,” she told me. “Thousands of them have been kidnapped, sexually assaulted or violently attacked, according to Human Rights First.”

    ‘PR stunt’. Even hard-line immigration activists, like the former Trump Department of Homeland Security official Ken Cuccinelli, who has pushed for this “invasion” declaration, called Abbott’s version of invoking the invasion clause inadequate since Abbott will not, apparently, be seizing federal authority to expel migrants from the country.

    It does, however, fit along with Abbott’s efforts to bus migrants out of Texas to cities like New York and Washington.

    “Saying you’re being invaded but not blocking the invaders from coming is a hollow shell,” Cuccinelli said, along with Russ Vought, president of the activist group Citizens for Renewing America. They dismissed Abbott’s move as a “PR stunt.”

    No obvious change. Flores pointed out it does not appear that Abbott’s declaration has changed the stance of the Texas Military Department nor its rules of engagement on the border. Abbott’s budget director said the announcement does not reflect a change in overall tactics.

    Back in February, CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez traveled to the border and talked to National Guard members taking part in Abbott’s previous deployment of state forces to the border. She found some who said the mission was a waste of time and resources, since the power to enforce immigration policy and border security is held by the federal government.

    Not what the founders intended. Any more on the invasion clause from Abbott would be “flagrantly unconstitutional,” according to Joseph Nunn of the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, who pointed out Texas is not being invaded by an army.

    “The Founders foresaw such invasions being launched by ‘ambitious or vindictive’ foreign powers and groups, not unarmed migrants and asylum-seekers,” Nunn said in a Twitter thread.

    Source link

  • Donald Trump faces billionaires in retreat and tabloid trolling a day after campaign announcement | CNN Politics

    Donald Trump faces billionaires in retreat and tabloid trolling a day after campaign announcement | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    A day after Donald Trump announced his third bid for the presidency, he faced public defections from billionaire backers and vicious trolling from a once-friendly New York tabloid – underscoring his early challenges in mounting a political comeback nearly two years after the end of his divisive presidency.

    Stephen Schwarzman, the CEO of the private equity firm Blackstone and a one-time Trump ally, announced Wednesday that he would not support Trump’s bid for the Republican nomination, saying it’s time “for the Republican party to turn to a new generation of leaders.”

    A spokesman for another billionaire supporter – cosmetic heir Ronald Lauder – confirmed to CNN on Wednesday that Lauder would not back Trump’s bid to become only the second US president elected to two nonconsecutive terms.

    And in another sign that the once-supportive conservative media empire controlled by Rupert Murdoch has moved on from Trump, the New York Post on Wednesday topped its story of his campaign announcement with a brutal headline, “Been there, Don That.” (By contrast, a front-page Post headline last week heralded Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as “DeFuture,” after the Republican cruised to a second term.)

    The pullback by some donors shows that some of the party’s elite figures are open to alternatives two years out from the next presidential election. Trump, who has relied on a small-donor base to fuel his political ambitions, remains a formidable fundraising force. In an unprecedented move, he never stopped fundraising after leaving the White House, and his array of political committees has amassed more than $100 million in cash reserves.

    Trump is the first major Republican candidate to announce his candidacy. Over the weekend, DeSantis – a potential rival for the nomination – is slated to address one of the Republican Party’s most influential donor groups when he delivers a speech at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual gala dinner. Former US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, another Republican viewed as a possible presidential contender, also is slated to speak at the Saturday night event in Las Vegas.

    Trump remains a “big factor” in Republican politics and has earned accolades from coalition members for his staunch support of Israel, said Matthew Brooks, RJC’s executive director.

    But “people are window-shopping right now,” Brooks added. “There are people who are asking if we need a new direction and a new face.”

    Brooks said Trump was invited to the RJC gathering but had a scheduling conflict.

    CNN has reached out to Trump aides for comment.

    Schwarzman’s retreat from Trump is particularly significant because he’s one of the biggest donors in Republican politics and contributed $3 million in 2020 to a super PAC supporting Trump’s unsuccessful reelection campaign.

    In the midterms alone, Schwarzman donated more than $35 million to Republican candidates and groups active in federal elections, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit group that tracks political money.

    “America does better when its leaders are rooted in today and tomorrow, not today and yesterday,” Schwarzman said in his statement, first reported by Axios. Schwarzman said he would support one of the GOP’s “new generation of leaders” but did not say whom he is considering backing.

    Another Republican megadonor, Citadel’s Ken Griffin, recently indicated he would back DeSantis in 2024, should the Florida governor seek the GOP nomination.

    Lauder, a long-time Trump friend and financial supporter of Republican candidates and causes, has not indicated who would win his support.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    Source link

  • Poland, NATO say missile that killed two likely fired by Ukraine defending against Russian attack | CNN

    Poland, NATO say missile that killed two likely fired by Ukraine defending against Russian attack | CNN


    Bali, Indonesia
    CNN
     — 

    The leaders of Poland and NATO said the missile that killed two people in Polish territory on Tuesday was likely fired by Ukrainian forces defending their country against a barrage of Russian strikes, and that the incident appeared to be an accident.

    The blast occurred outside the village outside the rural eastern Polish village of Przewodow, about four miles (6.4 kilometers) west from the Ukrainian border on Tuesday afternoon, roughly the same time as Russia launched its biggest wave of missile attacks on Ukrainian cities in more than a month.

    On Wednesday, Polish President Andrzej Duda told a press conference that there was a “high chance” it was an air defense missile from the Ukrainian side and likely had fallen in Poland in “an accident” while intercepting incoming Russian missiles.

    “There is no indication that this was an intentional attack on Poland. Most likely, it was a Russian-made S-300 rocket,” Duda said in a tweet earlier Wednesday.

    Both Russian and Ukrainian forces have used Russian-made munitions during the conflict, including the S-300 surface-to-air missile system, which Kyiv has deployed as part of its air defenses.

    The incident in Poland, a NATO country, prompted ambassadors from the US-led military alliance to hold an emergency meeting in Brussels Wednesday.

    NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg too said there was no indication the incident was the result of a deliberate attack by either side, and that Ukrainian forces were not to blame for defending their country from Russia’s assault.

    “Our preliminary analysis suggests that the incident was likely caused by the Ukrainian air defense missile fired to defend Ukrainian territory against Russian cruise missile attacks,” Stoltenberg said. “But let me be clear, this is not Ukraine’s fault. Russia bears ultimate responsibility, as it continues its illegal war against Ukraine.”

    Stoltenberg also said there were no signs that Russia was planning to attack NATO countries, in comments that appeared to be intended to defuse escalating tensions.

    News of the incident overnight led to a flurry of activity thousands of miles away in Indonesia, where US President Joe Biden convened an emergency meeting with some world leaders to discuss the matter on the sidelines of the G20 summit.

    A joint statement following the emergency meeting at the G20 was deliberately ambiguous when it came to the incident, putting far more focus on the dozens of strikes that happened in the hours before the missile crossed into Poland.

    Duda and Stoltenberg’s comments tally with those of two officials briefed on initial US assessments, who told CNN it appeared the missile was Russian-made and originated in Ukraine.

    The Ukrainian military told the US and allies that it attempted to intercept a Russian missile in that timeframe and near the location of the Poland missile strike, a US official told CNN. It’s not clear that this air defense missile is the same missile that struck Poland, but this information has informed the ongoing US assessment of the strike.

    The National Security Council said that the US has “full confidence” in the Polish investigation into the blast and that the “party ultimately responsible” for the incident is Russia for its ongoing invasion.

    Investigations at the site where the missile landed will continue to be a joint operation with the US, Polish President Duda said Wednesday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has called for Ukrainian experts to be allowed to the site.

    Zelensky said Wednesday he did not believe that the missile was launched by his forces, and called for Ukrainian experts to play a part in the investigation. “I have no doubt that it was not our missile,” he told reporters in Kyiv.

    Earlier Wednesday, a Zelensky adviser said the incident was a result of Russia’s aggression but did not explicitly deny reports that the missile could have been launched by the Ukrainian side.

    “Russia has turned the eastern part of the European continent into an unpredictable battlefield. Intent, means of execution, risks, escalation – it is all coming from Russia alone,” Mykhailo Podolyak said in a statement to CNN.

    A spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force said on national television Wednesday that the military would “do everything” to facilitate the Polish investigation.

    Earlier, Biden said that preliminary information suggested it was unlikely the missile that landed in Poland was fired from Russia, after consulting with allies at the G20 Summit in Bali.

    “I don’t want to say that [it was fired from Russia] until we completely investigate,” Biden went on. “It’s unlikely in the minds of the trajectory that it was fired from Russia. But we’ll see.”

    Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Wednesday that Russia doesn’t have “any relation” with the missile incident in Poland, and that some leaders have made statements without understanding “what actually happened.”

    “The Poles had every opportunity to immediately report that they were talking about the wreckage of the S-300 air defense system missile. And, accordingly, all experts would have understood that this could not be a missile that had any relation with the Russian Armed Forces,” Peskov said during a regular call with journalists.

    “We have witnessed another hysterical frenzied Russophobic reaction, which was not based on any real evidence. High-ranking leaders of different countries made statements without any idea about what actually happened.”

    Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas told CNN that NATO allies must “keep a cool head” in light of the incident.

    “I think we really have to keep a cool head, knowing there might be a spillover effect, especially to those countries that are very close [to Ukraine],” Kallas told CNN’s Chief International Anchor Christiane Amanpour in an interview Wednesday.

    The incident comes after Russia unleashed a barrage of 85 missiles on Ukraine Tuesday, predominantly targeting energy infrastructure. The bombardment caused city blackouts and knocked out power to 10 million people nationwide. Power has since been restored to eight million consumers, Zelensky later confirmed.

    Ukrainians across the country were expected to face further scheduled and unscheduled power cuts Wednesday.

    Source link

  • Donald Trump is no Grover Cleveland | CNN Politics

    Donald Trump is no Grover Cleveland | CNN Politics

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



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump wants to do a full Grover Cleveland and match the only US president to lose a presidential election and then rise from the ashes to regain the White House four years later.

    Other examples of former presidents trying to regain power have gone poorly. Theodore Roosevelt’s progressive rebellion split open a schism in the GOP; neither Herbert Hoover nor Martin Van Buren could get nominations from their parties after previous losses.

    With the announcement of his third White House run, Trump is trying to emulate Cleveland, who won, lost and then won the White House in 1884, 1888 and 1892.

    In many other ways, Trump, a native New Yorker, and Cleveland, the only president born in New Jersey, have little in common. Most of what’s below comes from reading about Cleveland at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center and also the University of California Santa Barbara’s American Presidency Project.

    Trump, a Republican, lost the popular vote twice. He lost both the Electoral College and the popular vote to Joe Biden in 2020, but Trump also got fewer popular votes compared with Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and first lady, when he beat her in the Electoral College in 2016.

    Cleveland, a Democrat, won the popular vote three times. He got more popular votes than his opponent when he won the White House in 1884 and 1892, and while he lost the Electoral College vote to Benjamin Harrison in 1888, Cleveland beat him in the popular vote. Regardless of the popular vote, Cleveland’s first win in 1884 was thanks to an extremely narrow 1,200-vote margin that delivered him New York’s decisive electoral votes.

    Trump rejected his loss. The former president skipped Biden’s inauguration, still won’t admit he lost in 2020 and has infected the Republican Party with a vein of denialism.

    Cleveland held the umbrella as his opponent became president. At a rainy inauguration in March 1889, Cleveland held an umbrella over Harrison’s head as the latter took the oath of office.

    Trump is one of the oldest presidents. Seventy when he took office in 2017, Trump would be 78 if he wins and takes office again in January 2025. That would make him the second-oldest president after Biden.

    Cleveland was a young president. Just 47 when he first took the oath of office, Cleveland was 55 when he won reelection. Cleveland died at 71, an age at which Trump was in the first half of his term.

    Trump revels in the campaign. He lives for winding speeches eaten up by adoring crowds.

    Cleveland barely campaigned. Candidates of the day didn’t campaign as much, but when he first won the White House in 1884, Cleveland gave just two campaign speeches.

    He was similarly disinterested in campaigning four years later, which could explain his defeat in 1888, but doesn’t explain how he won again in 1892.

    Trump is famous for denying scandals. One example: He disputed paying hush money to women who alleged affairs with him despite the confirmation of his former attorney Michael Cohen, who set up the payments.

    Cleveland admitted an affair. Attacked by Republicans in 1884, Cleveland admitted he may in fact have fathered an illegitimate child with a woman later sent to an insane asylum.

    “Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa,” went the attack ad of the day. Cleveland turned honesty into a campaign attribute and urged supporters to tell the truth.

    Trump imposed tariffs. One of Trump’s lasting policy legacies are the tariffs he imposed on China and other countries.

    Cleveland fought tariffs. A reason he lost in 1892 was Cleveland’s opposition to high tariffs, an unpopular position exploited by Harrison.

    There are, however, some other similarities between Trump and Cleveland.

    Cleveland and Frances Folsom's wedding in June of 1886 was the only marriage of a sitting president in the White House. She was 21 and had been his ward.

    They both married younger women. Melania Trump is 24 years younger than her husband, Donald. Cleveland married his wife Frances during his first term in the White House, still the only marriage of a sitting president conducted at the White House. Frances Cleveland was 21 at the time and had been Cleveland’s ward after her father, Cleveland’s former law partner, died.

    They both considered using troops on Americans. Trump considered calling out the military on protesters in front of the White House, and some of his advisers considered trying to impose martial law as they sought to overturn his defeat in 2020.

    Cleveland called out federal troops to put down the Pullman railcar strike, a controversial and unprecedented use of force against striking workers.

    (Related: Today, the odds of a railroad union strike are on the rise after a third union rejected a proposed contract. Read more.)

    They both promised to clean up Washington. Trump won in 2016 promising to “drain the swamp” in Washington, and Cleveland’s main issue was to put corrupt Republicans in check, something that resonated with anti-corruption Republicans known as the “Mugwumps.”

    They both cut down on some immigration. The issue that most animated Trump was building a wall at the southern border. He also curbed legal immigration to the US and imposed a travel ban on certain countries. Cleveland renewed the Chinese Exclusion Act and prevented Chinese laborers from returning to the US. But Cleveland rejected a law that would have imposed a literacy test on immigrants.

    They both relied on the South. Trump could not win his home state of New York like Cleveland did, but both men relied on a southern base of support for their political power.

    Joshua Zeitz wrote for Politico recently that when Cleveland ran in 1892 after losing in 1888, it was largely out of boredom. Trump, meanwhile, seems to be more interested in revenge for what he falsely calls a fraudulent election.

    CORRECTION: This story has been updated to correct Martin Van Buren’s political party. He was a Democrat.

    Source link

  • Trump offers a dark vision voters have already rejected as he launches his 2024 campaign | CNN Politics

    Trump offers a dark vision voters have already rejected as he launches his 2024 campaign | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    It’s American carnage, round three.

    Ex-President Donald Trump on Tuesday dragged Americans back into his dystopian worldview of a failing nation scarred by crime-ridden cities turned into “cesspools of blood,” and swamped by immigrants. He added a scary new twist at a time of global tensions, claiming the country was on the verge of tumbling into nuclear war.

    Launching his bid for a third consecutive Republican presidential nomination, Trump conversely painted his own turbulent single term, which ended in his attempt to destroy democracy and a mismanaged pandemic, as a “golden age” of prosperity and American global dominance.

    The new Trump – for the 2024 campaign – is the same as the old Trump.

    He pounded out a message of American decline, highlighted raging inflation and slammed President Joe Biden as aged, weak, and disrespected by US enemies, while highlighting his own chummy ties with global dictators, like North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who seek to weaken American power.

    When the 76-year-old former property tycoon, reality star and commander in chief promised a new “quest to save our country,” he encapsulated the challenges that his new campaign poses for his own party and the rest of the United States.

    To begin with, in the gold-leafed ballroom of his Mar-a-Lago resort, Trump steered clear of the election denialism that helped doom multiple Republican nominees in the midterm elections and that has inspired skepticism of his viability among GOP lawmakers in Washington.

    But as usual, his self-discipline didn’t hold, as he descended further into his personal obsessions the longer he went on, portraying himself as a “victim,” raising new suspicion about the US election system and slamming ongoing criminal probes against him as politicized and deeply unfair. The speech lacked the riotous nature and energy of his campaign rallies. But Trump’s material was a familiar rhetorical cocktail of grievance certain to enthuse his base supporters.

    However, it may have come across to many of the swing voters in the states that he lost in 2020 as authoritarian demagoguery. Many of those voters deserted Republicans yet again last week, as the party failed to win back the Senate and as it still waits to confirm it will win only a slim majority in the House. Many GOP lawmakers squarely blame the lack of a red wave on Trump – for foisting extreme, election-denying candidates on the party in key states. That’s why there is increasing interest in potential alternative candidates like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who roared to reelection last week, and has recently proved, unlike Trump, that he can build a broad coalition with Trump-style policies but without the chaos epitomized by the 45th president.

    And yet by launching his campaign so early – before the 2022 election is even finalized – the ex-president is seeking to freeze the GOP field. And there is so far no evidence that his devoted supporters will desert him.

    What could be the opening acts of a new election clash between Trump and Biden unfolded over multiple time zones. As Trump was speaking, the current president – who confounded historic expectations of a midterm election drubbing – was at another beach resort, in Bali, Indonesia.

    Biden spent the moments leading up to Trump’s speech huddled with other world leaders seeking a united response to a possibly alarming escalation in the war in Ukraine after an explosion on the territory of NATO ally Poland. There was some irony to the fact that Biden was leading the same Western alliance at a moment of peril that Trump frequently had undermined while in office. (Biden said after a day of rising global tensions that first indications were that the missile that fell onto a Polish farm, killing two people, did not originate in Russia.)

    Epitomizing the gulf between a president’s duties and the frivolity of the campaign trail, Biden, when asked if he had a comment on Trump’s launch, replied: “No, not really.”

    Trump referred briefly to the FBI search of his home at Mar-a-Lago for his hoard of highly classified documents and subpoenas sent to his family members. It was a reminder that his campaign raises the extraordinary scenario of a candidate for president running for a new term while facing multiple criminal investigations and the possibility of indictment by the Justice Department. Trump, who has not been charged with a crime, is being investigated over the classified documents, the run-up to the US Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021, and in Georgia over his attempt to steal Biden’s win in the crucial swing state in 2020.

    Trump has already claimed that he is being persecuted because Biden wants to stop him from becoming president again – an accusation likely to be embraced by his millions of supporters. Thus, the clash between his campaign and various investigations into his conduct promises to inflict even more damage on political and legal institutions that he kept under continuous assault as president.

    One thing noticeably missing from Trump’s speech was acknowledgment of his unprecedented attempt to interrupt 250 years of peaceful transfers of power between presidents. But the Capitol insurrection is an indelible stain that is sure to haunt his campaign. CNN has exclusively reported that top DOJ officials have considered whether a special counsel would be needed during the Trump campaign to avoid potential political conflicts of interest.

    Trump is trying to pull off a historic feat accomplished by only one previous president – Grover Cleveland, who became the only commander in chief to serve nonconsecutive terms after he won a return to the White House in 1892.

    A Trump victory in 2024 would represent a stunning rebound given that he is the only president to have been impeached twice – once for trying to coerce Ukraine into investigating Biden, and secondly for inciting the mob attack on the Capitol, one of the most flagrant assaults ever on US democracy.

    A return to the Oval Office for Trump would stun the world. His record of disdaining US allies and coddling dictators such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un fractured decades of US foreign policy and made the United States – long a force for stability in the world – into one of its most erratic powers.

    Trump left office in disgrace in 2021, after the assault on the Capitol, not even bothering to attend the inauguration of his successor and insisting ever since that the election was corrupt – despite no evidence and against the findings of multiple courts and his own Justice Department.

    Ever since, the ex-president has made his lies about the 2020 election the centerpiece of a political movement that still has millions of followers – as was seen with the primary victories of some of his handpicked candidates in this year’s midterm elections.

    But many Trump-backed candidates failed to win competitive general elections. And Trump’s 2024 campaign will test whether there are Republicans who, while they may be drawn in by Trump’s bulldozing style and populist, nationalist instincts, will tire of the drama and chaos that surround him. It will also pose a question of whether a new generation of Republicans, who have tapped into his political base and the “America first” principles of Trumpism – like DeSantis, for example – are ready to challenge the movement’s still wildly popular founder.

    Trump was already rejected by a broad general election audience once – he lost by more than 7 million votes in 2020. The same pattern appeared to exert itself as the GOP fell short of expectations in the midterms, which ironically will give Trump-aligned lawmakers strong leverage in what’s likely to be a narrow House Republican majority.

    And even if he secures the nomination again, it’s an open question whether he’ll be able to recreate his 2016 winning coalition after alienating moderate and suburban voters or whether a combination of motivated base voters and previously disaffected Republicans returning to the fold will be able to make up the difference.

    Trump’s first term between 2017 and 2021 was one of the most tumultuous periods in American political history.

    He shattered the traditions and restraints of his office, subjecting political institutions – designed by the Founders to guard against exactly his brand of autocratic egotism – to their ultimate test.

    The 45th president’s reputation was also stained by his negligent denial and mismanagement of a once-in-100-years pandemic. He skipped over his failed leadership in the emergency during his speech on Tuesday night.

    Trump’s flouting of science and public health guidelines came back to haunt him as he contracted Covid-19 in the fall of 2020. He survived a serious bout with the help of experimental drugs before theatrically ripping off his mask in a White House photo op when he returned from the hospital.

    One important aspect of his pandemic strategy was a success, however. An early White House bet to invest big in vaccine development by private firms and scientists, under the title of Operation Warp Speed, put the US in better position than many other industrialized nations.

    The coronavirus destroyed the roaring economy Trump had hoped to ride to reelection, leaving as his most important achievement the shaping of a conservative Supreme Court majority, which has already dramatically altered American society with its overturning of Roe v. Wade and could last a generation.

    But history will most remember him for his two impeachments, both following abuses of power designed to manipulate the free and fair elections that are at the root of America’s democratic system in order to prolong his tenure in office. 

    The House select committee investigating the insurrection has uncovered damning evidence in Trump’s inner circle about his behavior in the run-up to January 6 and during the insurrection. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, for instance, testified that chief of staff Mark Meadows said Trump thought Vice President Mike Pence deserved the calls for him to be hanged by insurrectionists. There was also evidence of Trump’s vicious pressure on local officials and election workers in states such as Georgia.

    Yet there remain questions about whether the committee will be able to hold accountable a man who has always dodged responsibility in a wild and whirling life in business, reality television and politics.

    Even if the committee advises the Justice Department that prosecuting Trump is merited, it’s unknown whether the evidence it has collected would be sufficient to secure a conviction. And Attorney General Merrick Garland would be faced with a massive dilemma given the extraordinary implications of bringing criminal charges against an active presidential candidate.

    Source link

  • Federal judge blocks Title 42 rule that allowed expulsion of migrants at US-Mexico border, restoring access for some asylum seekers | CNN Politics

    Federal judge blocks Title 42 rule that allowed expulsion of migrants at US-Mexico border, restoring access for some asylum seekers | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge on Tuesday blocked Title 42 – a controversial rule that’s allowed US authorities to expel more than 1 million migrants who crossed the US-Mexico border.

    Tuesday’s court order leaves the Biden administration without one of the key tools it had deployed to address the thousands of migrants arriving at the border on a daily basis and could restore access to asylum for arriving migrants.

    In turn, the Biden administration requested a stay on the ruling for five weeks, according to a court filing.

    While the rule was drafted by the Trump administration during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Biden administration has relied heavily on it to manage the increase of migrants at the border.

    District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington, DC, found the Title 42 order to be “arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.”

    Prior to Title 42, all migrants arrested at the border were processed under immigration law. Thousands of migrants sent back to Mexico have been waiting along the border in shelters. Officials have previously raised concerns about what the end of Title 42 may portend, given limited resources and a high number of people trying to enter the country.

    Sullivan’s ruling also comes on the heels of the resignation of US Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Chris Magnus, who had been asked to resign by Mayorkas last week. CBP Deputy Commissioner Troy Miller is now serving as the acting commissioner.

    CNN has reached out to the White House, Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security for comment.

    Sullivan faulted the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issued the public health order, for “its decision to ignore the harm that could be caused” by issuing the policy. He said the CDC also failed to consider alternative approaches, such as letting migrants self-quarantine in homes of US-based friends, family, or shelters. The agency, he said, should have reexamined its approach when vaccines and tests became widely available.

    “With regard to whether defendants could have ‘ramped up vaccinations, outdoor processing, and all other available public health measures,’… the court finds the CDC failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation for why such measures were not feasible,” Sullivan wrote.

    The judge also concluded that the policy did not rationally serve its purpose, given that Covid-19 was already widespread throughout the United States when the policy was rolled out.

    “Title 42 was never about public health, and this ruling finally ends the charade of using Title 42 to bar desperate asylum seekers from even getting a hearing,” American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the case, said in a statement.

    The injunction request came from the ACLU, along with other immigrant advocacy groups, involves all demographics, including single adults and families. Unaccompanied children were already exempt from the order.

    The ACLU does not oppose the Biden administration’s request for a stay of Tuesday’s ruling through December 21, the administration noted in their filing.

    The public health authority was invoked at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and has been criticized by immigrant advocates, attorneys and health experts who argue it has no health basis and puts migrants in harm’s way.

    Sullivan had previously blocked the Biden administration from expelling migrant families with children apprehended at the US-Mexico border.

    Earlier this year, in anticipation of lifting Title 42 and under pressure from lawmakers, the Department of Homeland Security released a 20-page plan to manage a potential increase of migrants at the border. A separate federal judge struck down the administration’s intent to end Title 42 at the time.

    The CDC said at the time it’s no longer necessary given current public health conditions and the increased availability of vaccines and treatments for Covid-19.

    But in May, a federal judge in Louisiana blocked the Biden administration from ending Title 42.

    Since that court order, the administration has continued to use Title 42 and most recently, expanding it to include Venezuelan migrants who have arrived at the US southern border in large numbers.

    In October, there were more than 204,000 arrests along the US southern border and over 78,400 expulsions under Title 42, according to CBP data.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    Source link

  • Former Trump Org. CFO testifies he didn’t pay taxes on $1.76 million in personal expenses | CNN Politics

    Former Trump Org. CFO testifies he didn’t pay taxes on $1.76 million in personal expenses | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg testified Tuesday that he knew he should have paid taxes on hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits he received annually, including a company-paid Manhattan apartment that he said former President Donald Trump suggested he move into.

    Weisselberg testified for about 90 minutes during the criminal trial of the Trump Organization in Manhattan, calmly walking the jury through the growth of the company from 50 employees when he started there in 1986 into an umbrella organization that includes 500 entities.

    Under questioning by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger, Weisselberg answered “yes” as the prosecutor went through each of personal expenses he received from the Trump Org. – and that the company didn’t pay taxes on them from 2005 through 2017.

    One of those untaxed benefits Weisselberg received was a more than $7,000 per month 1200 square foot luxury apartment overlooking the Hudson River in Manhattan.

    The former CFO said Trump offered him the apartment in 2005 to cut his daily commute to Long Island where he lived at the time. Weisselberg sat down with Trump, who Weisselberg said asked him if he would consider moving into the city. Trump said, according to Weisselberg, it would “help you, help the company” and Weisselberg could work longer hours.

    Weisselberg said after speaking with his wife, they agreed to move in and Trump authorized the expense.

    He also said he expensed his utilities, phone, car leases and garage saying it was “part and parcel” with the apartment.

    Either Weisselberg or Trump would sign the rent checks for his apartment. In total, he received as much as $200,000 in untaxed compensation in a year from all those benefits, according to his testimony.

    Weisselberg testified had he asked for a raise the company would have had to pay him double – as much as $400,000, to cover the taxes.

    In all, Weisselberg said he didn’t pay taxes on approximately $1.76 million in personal expenses from 2005 through 2017.

    He acknowledged that he knowingly unreported his income on his tax forms to get the fringe benefits tax free, and he hid that information from the accountants at Mazars, he said, because he thought they would refuse to sign his tax returns had they known about it.

    Trump Organization Controller Jeff McConney knew the practice was illegal when he generated the false W-2 and 1099 tax forms on Weisselberg’s behalf, according to Weisselberg.

    McConney previously claimed on the stand that he didn’t think all of the expenses were handled improperly until an internal review years later.

    Weisselberg on Tuesday also acknowledged that he was stripped of the chief financial officer title after he was arrested and charged with 15 counts of tax fraud and grand larceny. Weisselberg, whose voice dropped to a whisper when discussing his crimes, said he continued to do most of the same work after he was indicted. That changed in October, several months after he pleaded guilty and agreed to testify, when Weisselberg said he began working from home and his contact with Eric Trump, who runs the company on a day-to-day basis, “stopped.”

    Weisselberg said he is on paid leave and still expects to receive a $500,000 bonus in January in addition to his $640,000 salary.

    The day Weisselberg finalized a plea deal with prosecutors in August, his son threw a birthday party for him at Trump Tower. Weisselberg attempted to downplay it, saying he regretted it, and that “it was a small cake.”

    Weisselberg is expected to continue on the stand Thursday morning.

    Two Trump Organization entities are charged with nine counts of tax fraud, grand larceny and falsifying business records in what prosecutors allege was a 15-year scheme to defraud tax authorities by failing to report and pay taxes on compensation provided to employees. The former president is not a defendant in the case and is not expected to be implicated in any wrongdoing.

    Source link

  • Pence: ‘I think we’ll have better choices in the future’ than Trump | CNN Politics

    Pence: ‘I think we’ll have better choices in the future’ than Trump | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Former Vice President Mike Pence said in a newly released interview clip that he and his family are giving “prayerful consideration” to whether he should run for president in 2024 and that the US will have “better choices in the future” than former President Donald Trump.

    Asked by ABC News’ David Muir if he believes he can defeat Trump, who is expected to announce a 2024 campaign for the White House on Tuesday, Pence replied: “Well, that would be for others to say, and it’d be for us to decide whether or not we’d want to test that.”

    And asked whether he believes his former boss should serve again as president, Pence said: “I think that’s up to the American people. But I think we’ll have better choices in the future. People in this country actually get along pretty well once you get out of politics. And I think they want to see their national leaders start to reflect that same, that same compassion and generosity of spirit. And I think, so in the days ahead, I think there will be better choices.”

    “And for me and my family, we will be reflecting about what our role is in that,” he added.

    The former vice president has been coy about his plans for 2024, but he has long been viewed as a potential aspirant for the Republican presidential nomination. Any formally declared bid, though, would almost certainly face strong opposition from Trump, whose supporters he would need in a primary fight.

    When pressed by Muir as to why Trump didn’t take action sooner to stop the violence at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, Pence said he “can’t account for what the president was doing” that day, and told ABC that he never heard from Trump or the White House on January 6.

    The former vice president, who was at the Capitol on January 6 as the violence unfolded, said he “felt no fear. I was filled with indignation about what I saw.”

    Pence, echoing an excerpt of his book published last week in The Wall Street Journal, described how he disagreed with his Secret Service lead agent, who initially wanted the vice president to leave the Capitol building. As a compromise, Pence was taken to the loading dock, which he was told was more secure, but found the motorcade positioned to leave the Capitol.

    “They were walking us for the motorcade with the doors on our Suburban open on either side. And I saw that they had positioned vehicles on the ramp. And I just turned to my Secret Service lead and said, ‘I’m not getting in that car’ … I just assumed that if we got in the car and close those 200-pound doors that not my team in the loading dock, but that somebody maybe back at Secret Service headquarters would simply give the driver an order to go,” Pence recalled.

    “I just didn’t want those rioters to see the vice president’s motorcade speeding away from Capitol Hill. I didn’t want to give them that satisfaction,” he added.

    Pence is set to participate in a CNN town hall on Wednesday, the day after the release of his forthcoming autobiography “So Help Me God.” The town hall, moderated by CNN Anchor and Chief Washington Correspondent Jake Tapper, will take place in New York City and is scheduled for 9 p.m. ET.

    Source link

  • The simple reason why Ron DeSantis should run for president in 2024 | CNN Politics

    The simple reason why Ron DeSantis should run for president in 2024 | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    In the week since he easily won reelection, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis hasn’t said much about his political future.

    He hasn’t had to. Speculation is rampant that DeSantis is considering a presidential bid, using the momentum gained from his sweeping victory in Florida as a springboard for a national campaign.

    Donald Trump is paying attention, too.

    “I would tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering – I know more about him than anybody – other than, perhaps, his wife,” Trump said on Election Day.

    Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, echoed that sentiment on Monday. “I can tell you, those primaries get very messy and very raw,” she said. “So wouldn’t it be nicer for him, and I think he knows this, to wait until 2028?”

    While the Trump wing of the party wants DeSantis to wait until at least 2028 to launch a White House bid, there’s a simple reason why he shouldn’t – and it all comes down to timing.

    Politics is all about timing. And history proves that.

    When Barack Obama announced that he would run for president less than two years after being elected to the Senate, skeptics were legion – insisting that he hadn’t put his time in to earn the right to run.

    Those skeptics didn’t go away. But Obama was entirely unhindered by the notion that he was too inexperienced for a national campaign and, in fact, it was something that appealed to some voters.

    Obama understood that the timing was right, even though Hillary Clinton was the heavy favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. Timing was everything.

    On the flip side, think of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. He was heavily courted to run for president in 2012 as Republicans fretted that they didn’t have the right candidate who could beat Obama.

    Christie eventually decided against the race. “Now is not my time,” Christie said in October 2011. “I have a commitment to New Jersey that I simply will not abandon.”

    Christie did eventually run for president – in 2016. And it didn’t go well. He dropped out after a disastrous sixth-place finish in the New Hampshire primary. Then Christie endorsed Trump and spent the rest of the campaign subservient to him, tarnishing his image. Now Christie is trying to reinvent himself as someone willing to speak truth to Trump. But the damage is done.

    The examples of Obama (on the positive end) and Christie (on the negative end) should guide DeSantis as he makes his decision. Four years is a very long time. Things change in politics. Who has momentum now may not have that same momentum in a year, much less four years.

    DeSantis is, at the moment, the hottest thing going in the Republican Party. To do anything other than run for president given that status – even if that means running against Trump – could well look like a massive mistake in two years’ time.

    Source link