ReportWire

Tag: us federal government

  • Breakthrough Women Fast Facts: Business, Education, US Government and Sports | CNN

    Breakthrough Women Fast Facts: Business, Education, US Government and Sports | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here is a look at women in business, education, government and sports who have broken through the glass ceiling and become the first in their respective positions in the United States.

    1739 – Elizabeth Timothy is the first woman newspaper publisher, of the South Carolina Gazette.

    1867-1919 – Madam C.J. Walker is the first woman to become a self-made millionaire. Her business develops and sells hair care products for Black women.

    1934 – Lettie Pate Whitehead is the first woman to serve as a director of a major corporation, the Coca-Cola Company.

    1967 – Isabel Benham is the first female partner at a Wall Street bond house, R.W. Pressprich & Co.

    1972 – Juanita Kreps becomes the first woman to serve as a director of the New York Stock Exchange. In 1977, she is the first woman appointed secretary of Commerce.

    1972 – Katharine Graham is the first woman to be CEO of a Fortune 500 company, the Washington Post.

    July 1999 – Carly Fiorina is the first woman to serve as CEO of a Fortune 20 company, Hewlett-Packard.

    October 1999 – Martha Stewart is the first woman to become a self-made billionaire. Her creative home brand includes books, a magazine, home furnishings and entertaining and gardening TV shows.

    2011 – Beth Mooney is the first woman to serve as CEO of a top 20 US bank, KeyCorp.

    2013 – Mary Barra is the first woman to serve as CEO of a major automaker, General Motors.

    September 10, 2020 – Citigroup names Jane Fraser as CEO, the first woman to lead a major US bank.

    December 12, 2022 – The Wall Street Journal names Emma Tucker as its next editor. Tucker will be the first woman to head the newspaper.

    1648 – Margaret Brent of Maryland appears before a court to request the right to vote. She is considered the first woman to practice law.

    July 16, 1840 – Catherine Brewer is the first in a group of 11 women to earn bachelor’s degrees, graduating from Wesleyan College in Macon, Georgia.

    1849 – Elizabeth Blackwell is the first woman to receive a medical degree. She earns a M.D. from the Geneva Medical College in New York.

    1866 – Lucy Hobbs is the first woman to receive a doctorate in dental surgery, graduating from the Ohio College of Dental Surgery.

    1869 – Arabella Mansfield is admitted to the Iowa State Bar, becoming the first woman admitted to a state bar.

    1870 – Ada Kepley graduates from Union College of Law in Chicago and is the first woman to earn a law degree.

    1873 – Ellen Swallow Richards, the first woman admitted to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, earns a degree in chemistry.

    1877 – Helen Magill becomes the first woman to earn a Ph.D., when she graduates from Boston University.

    1872 – Victoria Claflin Woodhull becomes the first woman presidential candidate in the United States when she is nominated for the Equal Rights Party.

    April 4, 1887 – Susanna Madora Salter is the first woman elected mayor of a US town, Argonia, Kansas.

    1916 – Jeannette Rankin of Montana is the first woman elected to Congress. She serves just one term and then is elected again in 1940 for one term. During this time, she votes against participation in both World War I and World War II.

    November 21, 1922 – Rebecca Felton is the first woman to serve in the US Senate. She is appointed by Georgia’s governor who wanted to win over female voters after his initial opposition to the Nineteenth Amendment giving women the right to vote. She serves 24 hours in this temporary vacancy during the session break.

    January 5, 1925 – Nellie Tayloe Ross is the first woman to serve as a governor of a state, Wyoming. In May 1933, she also becomes the first woman to serve as director of the US Mint.

    1928 – Genevieve R. Cline is the first woman appointed as a US federal judge. She is nominated to the US Customs Court by President Calvin Coolidge.

    1932 – Hattie Wyatt Caraway is the first woman elected to the US Senate. She wins a special election after taking her late husband’s seat by appointment. She serves Arkansas in the Senate for nearly 14 years.

    1933 – Frances Perkins is the first woman to be appointed US secretary of labor, making her the first woman to serve on a presidential cabinet. She is largely responsible for crafting much of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” labor and Social Security legislation.

    1948 – Margaret Chase Smith of Maine is the first woman to win election to both houses of Congress. (She was elected to the House in 1940.) Her landmark legislation is the Armed Services Integration Act (giving women in the military full status).

    June 21, 1949 – Georgia Neese Clark is the first woman to be named Treasurer of the United States. She is appointed by President Harry S. Truman.

    1949 – Helen “Eugenie” Anderson is the first woman to serve as a United States ambassador. Under President Truman, Anderson serves as the ambassador to Denmark. Later, she also becomes the first woman to sign a diplomatic treaty, and the first woman to sit on the United Nations Security Council.

    1960 – Oveta Culp Hobby becomes the first secretary of health, education, and welfare. Later, she is also the first director of the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) and the first woman to receive the US Army Distinguished Service Medal.

    1964 – Margaret Chase Smith is the first woman placed in nomination for president of the United States by a major political party. At the Republican National Convention, she loses the nomination to Barry Goldwater.

    1977 – Juanita Kreps is the first woman appointed secretary of commerce. In 1972, she was the first woman to serve as a director of the New York Stock Exchange.

    December 6, 1979 – Shirley Hufstedler is sworn in as the first secretary of Education.

    September 25, 1981 – Sandra Day O’Connor takes her seat as the first woman on the US Supreme Court. She was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

    1983 – Elizabeth Dole becomes the first woman to serve as secretary of Transportation.

    1984 – Geraldine Ferraro is the first woman nominated for vice president of the United States by a major party, at the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco.

    1990 – Dr. Antonia Novello is the first woman (and the first Hispanic person) to be appointed as US surgeon general.

    January 21, 1993 – Hazel R. O’Leary is confirmed as the first woman to serve as US secretary of energy. She’s also the first African American to serve in that role.

    March 11, 1993 – Janet Reno is confirmed as the first woman to serve as US attorney general.

    August 5, 1993 – Sheila Widnall is confirmed by the Senate to serve as secretary of the Air Force, the first woman to serve as secretary of a branch of the US military.

    January 23, 1997 – Madeleine Albright is sworn in as the first woman to serve as US secretary of state. She was nominated by President Bill Clinton.

    December 17, 2000-2005 – Condoleezza Rice is the first woman to serve as national security adviser, to President George W. Bush.

    January 2001 – Gale Norton becomes the first woman to serve as US secretary of the interior, and Ann Veneman is the first woman to serve as US secretary of agriculture. Both were nominated by President George W. Bush.

    2001 – Fran Mainella is the first woman to be appointed director of the US National Park Service.

    2007 – Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) becomes the first woman to serve as speaker of the House of Representatives.

    2008 – Sarah Palin is the first woman to run for vice president as a Republican.

    2008 – Ann Dunwoody is the first woman to receive a rank of four-star general in the US Army.

    2009 – Janet Napolitano becomes the first woman to serve as US secretary of homeland security. Previously, Napolitano had been the first female chair of the National Governors Association and the first woman to serve as the attorney general of Arizona.

    February 2014 – Janet Yellen becomes the first woman to chair the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    September 2014 – Megan Smith is the first woman to be appointed as US chief technology officer.

    February 2015 – Megan Brennan becomes the first woman to serve as US postmaster general.

    May 13, 2016 – Air Force General Lori Robinson is appointed to lead US Northern Command, becoming the nation’s first female combatant commander.

    July 26, 2016 – Hillary Clinton is the first US woman to lead the ticket of a major party. She secures the Democratic nomination at the national convention in Philadelphia.

    September 14, 2016 – Carla Hayden is sworn in as the first female librarian of Congress.

    May 17, 2018 – Gina Haspel is confirmed as the first female director of the CIA.

    December 7, 2018 – Beth Kimber becomes the first woman to lead the CIA’s Directorate of Operations.

    June 29, 2019 – Maj. Gen. Laura Yeager becomes the first woman to lead a US Army infantry division.

    December 31, 2020 – Pelosi’s office announces the appointment of Rear Adm. Margaret Grun Kibben as chaplain of the House of Representatives — the first woman to serve in the role in either chamber.

    January 25, 2021 – Janet Yellen is confirmed as the first female Treasury secretary.

    October 19, 2021 – Dr. Rachel Levine is sworn in as the first female four-star admiral for the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. Levine is also the first openly transgender four-star officer across the nation’s eight uniformed services.

    January 20, 2021 – Kamala Harris is sworn in as vice president of the United States, making her America’s first female, first Black and first South Asian vice president.

    November 19, 2021 – US President Joe Biden temporarily transfers power to Harris while he is under anesthesia for a routine colonoscopy. Harris becomes the first woman with presidential power.

    December 15, 2021 Keechant Sewell is selected as the next New York City police commissioner, leading the nation’s largest police department. She becomes the first woman to lead the NYPD in its 176-year history. Her appointment begins in January 2022.

    December 1, 2022 – Admiral Linda Fagan becomes the first woman to lead a branch of the armed forces, as the 27th commandant of the US Coast Guard.

    November 2, 2023 – Admiral Lisa Franchetti becomes the first woman to lead the Navy and the first woman in the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    READ MORE: Women Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates: A Selected List from the Center for American Women and Politics.

    1997 – Dee Kantner and Violet Palmer become the first women to serve as referees in the NBA.

    April 8, 2015 – Sarah Thomas becomes the first female to be a full-time NFL referee.

    February 2, 2020 – Katie Sowers, offensive assistant for the San Francisco 49ers football team, becomes the first woman to coach in the Super Bowl.

    July 20, 2020 – Alyssa Nakken, the first female coach on a Major League Baseball staff in league history, becomes the first woman to coach on the field during a major league game. Nakken coached first base during an exhibition game between the San Francisco Giants and Oakland A’s.

    November 13, 2020 – The Miami Marlins announce the hiring of Kim Ng as the team’s new general manager, making her the first woman GM in Major League Baseball history. She is believed to be the first woman hired as a GM to lead a professional men’s sports team in any North American major league.

    Source link

  • Sandra Day O'Connor Fast Facts | CNN

    Sandra Day O'Connor Fast Facts | CNN

    Here is a look at the life of Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female justice on the United States Supreme Court.

    Birth date: March 26, 1930

    Death date: December 1, 2023

    Birth place: El Paso, Texas

    Birth name: Sandra Day

    Father: Harry A. Day, rancher

    Mother: Ada Mae (Wilkey) Day, rancher

    Marriage: John Jay O’Connor III (1952-2009, his death)

    Children: Scott, Brian and Jay

    Education: Stanford University, B.A. in Economics, 1950, graduated magna cum laude; Stanford Law School, LL.B, 1952

    In law school, she was on the Stanford Law Review and third in her class.

    Completed law school in two years.

    A proponent of judicial restraint. At her confirmation hearings, she said, “Judges are not only not authorized to engage in executive or legislative functions, they are also ill-equipped to do so.”

    In retirement, O’Connor has campaigned around the United States to abolish elections for judges, believing that a merit system leads to a more qualified and untainted judiciary.

    1952-1953 – County deputy attorney in San Mateo, California.

    1955-1957- Works as a civilian lawyer for the Quartermaster Corps in Germany, while her husband serves with the Army’s Judge Advocate General Corps.

    1959Opens a law firm in Maryvale, Arizona.

    1965-1969 – Assistant attorney general of Arizona.

    1969Appointed to fill a vacant seat in the Arizona Senate.

    1970 – Elected to the Arizona Senate.

    1972 – Reelected to the Arizona Senate and elected majority leader. She is the first woman to hold this office in any state.

    1975-1979Superior Court judge of Maricopa County.

    1979-1981 Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals.

    August 19, 1981 – Formally nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, to fill the seat of retiring Justice Potter Stewart.

    September 21, 1981 – Confirmed by the US Senate.

    September 25, 1981 – Sworn in as the first female Supreme Court justice of the United States.

    1982 – Writes an opinion invalidating a women-only enrollment policy at a Mississippi State nursing school because it “tends to perpetuate the stereotyped view of nursing as an exclusively women’s job.” Mississippi University for Women, et al., v. Hogan

    October 21, 1988 – Has surgery for breast cancer after being diagnosed earlier in the year.

    1996 – Writes the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision to restrict affirmative action policies and voting districts that are created to boost the political power of minorities. Shaw v. Reno

    1999 – Writes the majority ruling opinion in a 5-4 decision that public school districts that receive federal funds can be held liable when they are “deliberately indifferent” to the sexual harassment of one student by another. Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education

    2000 – Votes with the majority in a 5-4 decision that strikes down state laws banning the medical procedure that critics call “partial-birth” abortion. Stenberg v. Carhart

    December 2000 – Votes in the majority to end the recount in Florida which leads to George W. Bush becoming president of the United States. O’Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy are the only justices who do not attach their names to either a concurring or dissenting opinion in the case. Bush v. Gore

    January 31, 2006 Retires from the Supreme Court.

    2008 – Develops the website, OurCourts which later becomes iCivics, a free program for students to learn about civics.

    July 30, 2009 – Is awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama.

    February 25, 2014 – Her book “Out Of Order,” which is based on the history of the Supreme Court, is published.

    October 23, 2018 – Writes a letter revealing that she has been diagnosed with the “beginning stages of dementia, probably Alzheimer’s disease.”

    March 19, 2019 – The biography, “First: Sandra Day O’Connor,” is published.

    July 19, 2019 – O’Connor’s former home is listed by the National Park Service in the National Register of Historic Places. The adobe house built by O’Connor and her husband in 1958 in Paradise Valley, Arizona, was relocated to Tempe, Arizona, in 2009. It is the home of the Sandra Day O’Connor Institute.

    April 13, 2022 – President Joe Biden signs a bipartisan bill into law to erect statues of O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the grounds of the US Capitol. The legislation stipulates that the statues should be placed within two years of its enactment.

    December 1, 2023 – Dies at age 93 from complications related to dementia.

    Source link

  • Wilbur Ross Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    Wilbur Ross Fast Facts | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of former Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr.

    Birth date: November 28, 1937

    Birth place: Weehawken, New Jersey

    Birth name: Wilbur Louis Ross Jr.

    Father: Wilbur Louis Ross Sr., a lawyer

    Mother: Agnes (O’Neill) Ross, a teacher

    Marriages: Hilary (Geary) Ross (October 9, 2004); Betsy (McCaughey) Ross (December 7, 1995-August 2000, divorced); Judith (Nodine) Ross (May 26, 1961-October 1995, divorced)

    Children: with Judith Nodine: Jessica and Amanda

    Education: Yale University, A.B., 1959, Harvard University, M.B.A., 1961

    He was called the “King of Bankruptcy,” as he built new companies from the assets of defaulted ones.

    Ross was known for investing in distressed companies in a wide range of industries including auto parts, steel, textiles and financial services.

    1976-2000 – Works for the investment bank Rothschild Inc. During his tenure, he becomes a top bankruptcy adviser.

    January 1998 – Pledges $2.25 million towards then-wife and Lt. Governor Betsy McCaughey Ross’ campaign for governor of New York. He withdraws the funding in September and files for divorce in November.

    2000 – Purchases a small fund he started at Rothschild and opens his own private equity firm, WL Ross & Co. LLC.

    2002 – Establishes the International Steel Group (ISG), with himself as chairman of the board, through a series of mergers and acquisitions starting with Bethlehem Steel Corp.

    December 2003 – ISG goes public.

    2004 – Forms the International Coal Group (ICG) after purchasing the assets of Horizon Natural Resources in a bankruptcy auction.

    October 2004 – Merges ISG with Mittal Steel for $4.5 billion.

    January 2, 2006 – Twelve miners are killed after an explosion at a West Virginia mine operated by an ICG subsidiary. Families of the dead and Randal McCloy, the lone survivor, sue ICG and WL Ross claiming negligence. All of the lawsuits are settled by November 2011.

    April 2010 – Purchases a 21% stake in Richard Branson’s Virgin Money. In November 2011, Ross helps Branson fund a successful bid for the British bank Northern Rock.

    August 2, 2010 – During an interview with Charlie Rose, Ross states that he’s fine with higher taxes on the wealthy as long as the government puts the money to good use.

    June 2011 – Arch Coal, Inc. acquires ICG for $3.4 billion.

    September 2011 – WL Ross is one of five US and Canadian companies that purchase a 34.9% stake in the Bank of Ireland. Ross’ share is reportedly 9.3%.

    March 21, 2016 – Nexeo Solutions, a chemical distribution company, announces their merger agreement with WL Ross Holding Corporation. The merger is valued at nearly $1.6 billion.

    August 24, 2016 – The Securities and Exchange Commission announces that WL Ross will pay a $2.3 million fine for failing to properly disclose fees it charged.

    November 30, 2016 – Ross announces in a CNBC interview that President-elect Donald Trump has asked him to serve as his commerce secretary.

    February 27, 2017 – The Senate confirms Ross as commerce secretary by a 72-27 vote. He is sworn in the next day.

    November 5, 2017 – The New York Times reports that Ross has financial ties to a shipping company whose clients include a Russian energy company co-owned by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s son-in-law. Another customer of the shipping company is Venezuela’s state-run oil company, which has been sanctioned by the US government. The information comes from the Paradise Papers, a release of 13.4 million leaked documents.

    November 7, 2017 – Two days after the Paradise Papers are released, Forbes reports that Ross inflated his net worth to be included in the magazine’s annual list of the world’s wealthiest individuals. His name is removed from the magazine’s website. An investigation by the magazine reveals that Ross has likely been providing inaccurate financial information since 2004. Ross claims that the magazine overlooked trusts for his family while tallying his fortune.

    March 2, 2018 – During an appearance on CNBC, Ross says the Trump administration’s steel and aluminum tariffs won’t hurt consumers. He holds up a can of Campbell’s soup as he explains that the price of soup will go up less than a penny due to the tariffs.

    March 26, 2018 – Ross announces that a citizenship question will be added to the 2020 census.

    July 12, 2018 – Ross admits to “errors” in failing to divest assets required by his government ethics agreement and says he will sell all his stock holdings. The admission comes after the Office of Government Ethics took Ross to task for what it said were inconsistencies in his financial disclosure forms.

    September 21, 2018 – A federal judge rules that Ross must sit for a deposition in a lawsuit regarding his department’s decision to include a question about citizenship in the 2020 census. The US Supreme Court later blocks the deposition.

    December 19, 2018 – The Center for Public Integrity reports that Ross failed to sell a bank stock holding within the required time frame after his 2017 confirmation and subsequently signed ethics documents indicating the holding had been sold.

    February 15, 2019 – Ross’ financial disclosure form is rejected by the Office of Government Ethics. Ross later releases a statement saying, “While I am disappointed that my report was not certified, I remain committed to complying with my ethics agreement and adhering to the guidance of Commerce ethics officials.”

    June 27, 2019 – The Supreme Court issues a 5-4 ruling that blocks the citizenship question from being added to the census.

    July 17, 2019 – The House votes to hold Ross in criminal contempt over a dispute related to the citizenship question on the census. Attorney General William Barr is also held in contempt. Ross releases a statement in which he dismisses the vote as a political stunt. “House Democrats never sought to have a productive relationship with the Trump Administration, and today’s PR stunt further demonstrates their unending quest to generate headlines instead of operating in good faith with our Department.”

    July 18, 2020 – A department spokesman says that Ross has been hospitalized for “minor, non-coronavirus related issues.” On July 27, the Commerce Department says Ross has been released from the hospital.

    September 28, 2020 – Ross announces that he intends to conclude the 2020 census on October 5. This is more than three weeks earlier than expected and against the October 31 court reinstated end date. Ross asks Census Bureau officials if the earlier date would effectively allow them to produce a final set of numbers during Trump’s current term in office, according to an internal email released the following day as part of a lawsuit.

    October 13, 2020 – The Supreme Court grants a request from the Trump administration to halt the census count while an appeal plays out over a lower court’s order that it continue. The Census Bureau announces that the count is ending on October 15.

    July 19, 2021 – According to a letter made public from Commerce Department Inspector General Peggy Gustafson to Democratic lawmakers, the Justice Department decides to decline prosecution of Ross for misrepresentations he made to Congress about the origins of the Trump administration’s failed push to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

    Source link

  • Arizona fake electors led vocal campaign to overturn the 2020 election — they’re now part of a ‘robust’ state investigation | CNN Politics

    Arizona fake electors led vocal campaign to overturn the 2020 election — they’re now part of a ‘robust’ state investigation | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    They called it “The Signing.” Eleven fake electors for President Donald Trump convened at the state Republican Party headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, on December 14, 2020. They broadcast themselves preparing to sign the documents, allegedly provided by a Trump campaign attorney, claiming that they were the legitimate representatives of the state’s electoral votes.

    By that time, Trump’s loss in the state – by less than 11,000 votes – had already been certified by the state’s Republican governor affirming that Joe Biden won Arizona in the 2020 presidential election.

    But in the weeks that followed, five of Arizona’s 11 “Republican electors,” as they called themselves, pushed an unusually vocal campaign, compared to other fake electors from states across the country, for Vice President Mike Pence to reject the legitimate Democratic slate of electors.

    Instead, they called on Pence to accept them or no electors at all, according to a CNN KFile review of their interviews, actions and comments on social media.

    Much attention has been drawn to the fake elector schemes in Georgia and Michigan where local and state authorities charged some participants for election crimes this past summer. But in no other state were there fake electors more active in publicly promoting the scheme than in Arizona.

    Now those fake electors find themselves under new legal scrutiny as the Arizona attorney general announced a broad investigation into their actions and their public campaign that could open the electors up to increased legal liability, according to experts who spoke with CNN.

    “They were more brazen,” Anthony Michael Kreis, an expert on constitutional law at Georgia State University told CNN. “There is no difficulty trying to piece together their unlawful, corrupt intent because they publicly documented their stream of consciousness bread trail for prosecutors to follow.”

    Attorney General Kris Mayes, in an interview with CNN, said she has been in contact with investigators in Michigan and Georgia and the Department of Justice.

    “It’s robust. It’s a serious matter,” Mayes, a Democrat, said of her ongoing investigation. “We’re going to make sure that we do it on our timetable, applying the resources that it requires to make sure that justice is done, for not only Arizonans, but for the entire country.”

    All 11 electors took part in multiple failed legal challenges, first asking a judge to invalidate the state’s results in a conspiracy theory-laden court case and then taking part in a last-ditch, desperate plea seeking to force Pence to help throw the election to Trump. The cases were dismissed.

    Of the 11 fake electors in Arizona, five were the most publicly vocal members advocating the scheme in the state: Kelli Ward, the chairperson of the state party and her spouse, Michael Ward; state Rep. Anthony Kern, then a sitting lawmaker; Jake Hoffman, a newly elected member of the Arizona House; and Tyler Bowyer, a top state official with the Republican National Committee.

    Each of these five publicly pushed for the legitimate electors to be discarded by Pence on January 6, 2021. One of the fake electors, Kern, took part in “Stop the Steal” rallies and was photographed in a restricted area on the Capitol steps during the riot at the Capitol.

    “The Arizona false electors left a trail here that will surely interest prosecutors,” Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who previously served as the special counsel to the general counsel at the Department of Defense, told CNN.

    Electors, a part of the Electoral College system, represent the popular vote in each state. When a candidate wins a state, the party’s designated slate of electors gets to participate in the Electoral College process. The electors meet in a ceremonial process and sign certificates, officially casting their vote for president.

    CNN reached out to all of the electors, but only received comment from two of them.

    The most publicly vocal of the fake electors, Kelli Ward called the group the “true electors,” and provided play-by-play updates on the Arizona Republican Party’s YouTube. Falsely saying the state’s electoral votes were “contested,” even though legal challenges to the count had been dismissed, she urged supporters to call on Arizona’s state legislature to decertify the state’s results.

    “We believe our votes are the ones that will count on January 6th,” she said in one interview on conservative talk radio, two days after signing the fake documents.

    Ward’s comments were echoed in tweets by her husband, Michael, also an elector and a gadfly in Arizona politics known for spreading conspiracy theories. In a post sharing a White House memo that urged Pence to reject the results from states that submitted fake electors, Michael Ward hinted at retribution for Republicans who failed to act.

    “My Holiday prayer is that every backstabbing ‘Republican’ gets paid back for their failure to act come Jan 20th!” he wrote in a tweet on December 22.

    Another prominent elector was the RNC Committeeman Bowyer, who on his Twitter account pushed false election claims and conspiracies.

    “It will be up to the President of the Senate and congress to decide,” Bowyer tweeted after signing the fake electors documents.

    In repeated comments Bowyer declared the decision would come down to Pence.

    “It’s pretty simple: The President of the United States Senate (VP) has the awesome power of acknowledging a specific envelope of electoral votes when there are two competing slates— or none at all,” wrote Bowyer in a December 28 tweet.

    “We don’t live in a Democracy. The presidential election isn’t democratic,” he added when receiving pushback.

    A spokesperson for Bowyer said that he was simply responding to a question from a user on what next steps looked like and maintained that there was precedent for a competing slate of electors.

    Bowyer urged action in the lead up to the joint session of Congress on January 6.

    “Be a modern Son of Liberty today,” he said late in the morning of January 6 – a post he deleted following the riot at the Capitol.

    The spokesperson for Bowyer said he had not directly been contacted by Mayes’s office or the DOJ.

    Newly elected state representative Hoffman sent a two-page letter to Pence on January 5, 2021, asking the vice president to order that Arizona’s electors not be decided by the popular vote of the citizens, but instead by the members of the state legislature.

    Rep. Jake Hoffman is sworn in during the opening of the Arizona Legislature at the state Capitol in 2021.

    “It is in this late hour, with urgency, that I respectfully ask that you delay the certification of election results for Arizona during the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021, and seek clarification from the Arizona state legislature as to which slate of electors are proper and accurate,” wrote Hoffman.

    In interviews, Hoffman repeatedly argued no electors be sent at all because “we don’t have certainty in the outcome of our election,” and to contest Democrat electors if they were sent.

    Then-state Rep. Kern, who lost his seat in the 2020 election, spent his final weeks in office sharing “stop the steal” content and participating in their rallies. He said he was “honored” to be a Trump elector.

    “On January 6th, vice President Mike Pence gets a choice on which electors he’s going to choose,” Kern told the Epoch Times in an interview in December.

    “There is no president elect until January 6th,” he added.

    Kern hadn’t changed his tune in an interview with CNN.

    “Why, why would you think alternate electors are a lie?,” Kern said.

    Kern repeatedly promoted the January 6, 2021, rally preceding the Capitol riot. Kern was in DC that day and shared a photo from the Capitol grounds as rioters gathered on the steps of the Capitol.

    “In DC supporting @realDonaldTrump and @CNN @FoxNews @MSNBC are spewing lies again. #truth,” he wrote in a tweet.

    Later Kern was seen in a restricted area of the Capitol steps during the riot. There is no indication he was violent, and he has not been charged with any crime.

    Source link

  • Merrick Garland Fast Facts | CNN

    Merrick Garland Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of Attorney General Merrick Garland, former chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

    Birth date: November 13, 1952

    Birth place: Chicago, Illinois

    Birth name: Merrick Brian Garland

    Father: Cyril Garland, founder of an advertising agency

    Mother: Shirley (Horwitz) Garland, community volunteer

    Marriage: Lynn (Rosenman) Garland (1987-present)

    Children: Jessica and Rebecca

    Education: Harvard University, A.B., 1974, graduated summa cum laude; Harvard Law School, J.D., 1977, graduated magna cum laude

    Religion: Jewish

    Garland supervised the investigation of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and oversaw the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh. He also led the investigations of the 1996 Olympics bombing in Atlanta and the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski.

    He paid for law school by working in a shoe store, selling his comic books and tutoring undergraduates.

    He was a candidate for the Supreme Court twice before President Barack Obama nominated him, considered for seats ultimately filled by Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

    Tutors elementary school children in reading and math.

    1977-1978 – Clerks for Second Circuit Judge Henry Friendly.

    1978-1979 – Clerks for US Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan.

    1979-1981 – Special assistant to the attorney general.

    1981-1989 – Joins the law firm Arnold & Porter as an associate and is promoted to partner in 1985.

    1989-1992 – Assistant US attorney for the District of Columbia.

    1992-1993 – Returns to Arnold & Porter as partner.

    1993-1994 – Deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.

    1994-1997 – Principal associate deputy attorney general.

    1997-March 2021 – Appointed by President Bill Clinton, Garland serves on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. It took more than a year for Garland to be confirmed in the Senate, as lawmakers questioned whether the vacant seat on the court should be filled at all.

    2013 – Becomes chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

    March 16, 2016 – Obama nominates Garland to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. For months, Senate Republicans refuse to hold confirmation hearings.

    January 3, 2017 – Garland’s nomination expires. He returns to his position as chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

    February 13, 2020 – Garland steps down as chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Sri Srinivasan takes over.

    January 7, 2021 – President-elect Joe Biden announces Garland as his pick for US attorney general.

    March 10, 2021The Senate confirms Garland as US attorney general with a 70-30 vote.

    March 11, 2021 – Garland is officially sworn in as the 86th attorney general by Vice President Kamala Harris.

    July 1, 2021 – Garland orders a temporary halt to federal executions as Justice Department senior officials review the policies and procedures for the controversial punishment.

    June 30, 2022 – The Justice Department announces that Garland is scheduled to undergo a medical procedure for benign enlargement of the prostate on July 7. The deputy attorney general will assume the duties of the attorney general during the surgery.

    Source link

  • John F. Kennedy Assassination Fast Facts | CNN

    John F. Kennedy Assassination Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s some background information about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

    November 22, 1963
    – 11:37 a.m. – Air Force One arrives at Dallas’ Love Field with the President and his wife, Jacqueline Kennedy, Texas Governor John B. Connally Jr. and his wife, Idanell Connally. Vice President Lyndon Johnson and his wife, Lady Bird Johnson, arrive in a separate plane. It is a campaign trip for the coming 1964 election, although not officially designated as such.

    During a 10-mile tour of Dallas, the President and Mrs. Kennedy and the governor and Mrs. Connally ride in an open convertible limousine. The motorcade is on the way to the Trade Mart where the President is to speak at a sold-out luncheon.

    – 12:30 p.m. – As the President’s limousine passes the Texas School Book Depository, shots are fired from a sixth-floor window.

    President Kennedy and Governor Connally are both wounded and are rushed to Parkland Hospital.

    Wire services report three shots were fired as the motorcade passed under Stemmons Freeway. Two bullets hit the President and one hit the Governor.

    Emergency efforts by Drs. Malcolm Perry, Kemp Clark and others are unsuccessful at reviving the president. Governor Connally’s injuries are critical but not fatal. From one bullet, he sustains three broken ribs, a punctured lung and a broken wrist. The bullet finally lodged in his left thigh.

    – 12:36 p.m. – The ABC radio network broadcasts the first nationwide news bulletin reporting that shots have been fired at the Kennedy motorcade.

    – 12:40 p.m. – The CBS television network broadcasts the first nationwide TV news bulletin also reporting on the shooting.

    – 1:00 p.m. – Kennedy is pronounced dead by Parkland Hospital doctors, becoming the fourth US president killed in office.

    – 1:07 p.m. – News of the shooting causes the New York Stock Exchange to halt trading after an $11 million flood of sell orders.

    – 1:15 p.m. – Lee Harvey Oswald kills Dallas Police Patrolman J.D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination.

    – 2:00 p.m. – A bronze casket carrying the President’s body, accompanied by Mrs. Kennedy and the Johnsons, leaves Parkland Hospital for Air Force One.

    – 2:15 p.m. – Oswald, a 24-year-old ex-Marine, is arrested in the back of a movie theater where he fled after shooting Tippit.

    – 2:39 p.m. – Johnson is sworn in on the runway of Love Field aboard Air Force One. Federal Judge Sarah T. Hughes, of the Northern District of Texas, administers the oath of office. Witnesses include Jacqueline Kennedy and Johnson’s wife.

    – 5:00 p.m. (6:00 p.m. ET) – Air Force One arrives at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. The coffin bearing the President’s body is taken by ambulance to Bethesda Naval Hospital for an autopsy. The flag-draped coffin is taken to the East Room of the White House early the next morning following the autopsy.

    – 7:15 p.m. – Oswald is arraigned for the murder of Tippit.

    November 22-25, 1963 – Major television and radio networks devote continuous news coverage to ongoing events associated with the President’s assassination, canceling all entertainment and all commercials. Many theaters, stores and businesses, including the stock exchanges and government offices, are closed through November 25.

    November 23, 1963 – Oswald is arraigned for the murder of the president.

    November 23, 1963 – Johnson designates November 25 as a day of national mourning.

    November 24, 1963 – As Oswald is being transferred from the Dallas city jail to the county jail, nightclub owner Jack Ruby shoots and kills him. The shooting is inadvertently shown live on TV. Ruby is immediately arrested.

    November 24-25, 1963 – Kennedy’s flag-draped casket lies in state in the Capitol Rotunda.

    November 25, 1963 – Kennedy is buried at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors and representatives from more than 90 countries in attendance.

    November 26, 1963 – Ruby is indicted in Dallas for the murder of Oswald. He is later convicted, has the conviction overturned on appeal, and dies of cancer in 1967 awaiting a new trial.

    November 29, 1963 – Johnson appoints the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. Commonly called the Warren Commission, its purpose is to investigate the assassination.

    September 24, 1964 – The Warren Report is released with the following conclusions: “The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository.” And: “The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.”

    October 26,1992 – President George H.W. Bush signs the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act into law. The law directs the National Archives to establish a collection of records consisting of any materials, by any state or federal agency, that were created during the federal inquiry into the assassination.

    October 26, 2017 – The US government releases more than 2,800 records relating to Kennedy’s assassination in an effort to comply with a 1992 law mandating the documents’ release. President Donald Trump keeps roughly 300 files classified out of concern for US national security, law enforcement and foreign relations. In a memo, Trump directs agencies that requested redactions to re-review their reasons for keeping the records secret within 180 days.

    April 26, 2018 – Trump extends to 2021 the deadline for the public release of files related to the assassination. More than 19,000 documents are released by the National Archives, in compliance with the records law and Trump’s 2017 order.

    October 22, 2021 – The White House announces that it will further postpone the release of more documents related to the assassination, pointing to the “significant impact” of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    December 15, 2021 – The National Archives releases almost 1,500 previously classified documents related to the assassination.

    December 15, 2022 – The National Archives releases over 13,000 previously classified documents collected as part of the government review into the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

    June 30, 2023 – The White House announces the National Archives has concluded its review of the classified documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy, with 99% of the records having been made publicly available.

    Source link

  • Hassan Rouhani Fast Facts | CNN

    Hassan Rouhani Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

    Birth date: November 12, 1948

    Birth place: Sorkheh, Iran

    Birth name: Hassan Feridon

    Marriage: Sahebeh Arabi

    Children: Has four children

    Education: University of Tehran, B. A., 1972; Glasgow Caledonian University, M. Phil., 1995; Glasgow Caledonian University, Ph.D., 1999

    Religion: Shiite Muslim

    Rouhani is a cleric. His religious title is Hojatoleslam, which is a middle rank in the religious hierarchy.

    Arrested many times in the 1960s and 1970s as a follower of Ayatollah Khomeini.

    Iranian media refers to Rouhani as the “diplomat sheik.”

    1960 – Begins his religious studies at a seminary in Semnan province.

    1977 – Under the threat of arrest, leaves Iran and joins Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in exile in France.

    1980-2000After the overthrow of the Shah, Rouhani serves five terms in the National Assembly.

    1983-1988 – Member of the Supreme Defense Council.

    1985-1991 – Commander of the Iranian air defenses.

    1988-1989 – Deputy commander of Iran’s Armed Forces.

    1989-1997 – National security adviser to the president.

    1989-2005 – Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

    1989-present – Represents Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei on Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

    1991-present – Member of the country’s Expediency Council.

    1992-2013 – President of the Center for Strategic Research.

    1999-present – Member of the Council of Experts, the group that chooses the Supreme Leader.

    2000-2005 – National security adviser to the president.

    2003-2005 – Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator.

    June 14, 2013 – Wins the presidential election after securing more than 50% of the vote.

    August 4, 2013 – Rouhani is sworn in as the seventh president of Iran.

    September 19, 2013 – Writes a column in The Washington Post calling for engagement and “a constructive approach” to issues such as Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

    September 25, 2013 – In stark contrast to his predecessor, Rouhani condemns the actions of the Nazis during the Holocaust.

    September 27, 2013 – Speaks with US President Barack Obama by telephone, the first direct conversation between leaders of Iran and the United States since 1979.

    July 14, 2015 – After negotiators strike a nuclear deal in Vienna, Rouhani touts the benefits of the agreement on Iranian television, declaring, “Our prayers have come true.” The deal calls for restrictions on uranium enrichment and research in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.

    September 28, 2015 – Rouhani addresses the General Assembly of the United Nations, stating “A new chapter has started in Iran’s relations with the world.” However, he also says that America and Israel are partially responsible for the increase in global terrorism: “If we did not have the US military invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the United States’ unwarranted support for the inhumane actions of the Zionist regime against the oppressed nation of Palestine, today the terrorists would not have an excuse for the justification of their crimes.”

    September 22, 2016 – Speaking to global leaders at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Rouhani accuses the United States of “a lack of compliance” with the nuclear deal agreed on in July 2015. Rouhani also attacks the United States for what he describes as “illegal actions,” referring to the US Supreme Court decision in April 2016 to allow US victims of terror to claim nearly $2 billion in compensation from Iran’s central bank.

    May 20, 2017 – Rouhani wins reelection after securing approximately 57% of the vote.

    September 20, 2017 – In a press conference following US President Donald Trump’s speech at the UN General Assembly calling the nuclear deal with Iran an embarrassment to the United States, Rouhani calls for an apology to the people of Iran for the “offensive” comments and “baseless” accusations, including Trump’s assertion that the “Iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy.”

    July 22, 2018 – Addressing diplomats in Tehran, Rouhani warns the United States that war with Iran would be “the mother of all wars.”

    September 25, 2018 – In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Rouhani says Iran is sticking to the nuclear deal. If the signatories remaining after the United States pulled out aren’t “living up to their commitments,” then Iran will re-evaluate.

    November 5, 2018 – In public remarks made during a cabinet meeting, Rouhani says Iran will “proudly break” US sanctions that went into effect a day earlier. The sanctions – the second round reimposed after Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal in May – target Iran’s oil and gas industries as well as shipping, shipbuilding and banking industries.

    May 8, 2019 – Rouhani announces that Iran will reduce its “commitments” to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) but will not fully withdraw. In a televised speech, Rouhani says Iran will keep its excess enriched uranium and heavy water, rather than sell it to other countries as previously agreed to limit its stockpile.

    July 3, 2019 – Rouhani announces Iran will begin enriching uranium at a higher level than what is allowed under the JCPOA. He vows to revive work on the Arak heavy-water reactor, which had been suspended under the nuclear deal.

    September 26, 2019 – Rouhani announces Iran has started using advanced models of centrifuges to enrich uranium in violation of the JCPOA.

    January 3, 2020 Qasem Soleimani, leader of the Quds Force unit Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps since 1988, is killed at Baghdad International Airport in an US airstrike ordered by Trump. Rouhani says the United States committed a “grave mistake” and “will face the consequences of this criminal act not only today, but also in the coming years.”

    January 11, 2020 Rouhani apologizes to the Ukrainian people after Iran’s armed forces downs a Ukraine International Airlines passenger jet in Tehran, mistaking it for a hostile target. He promises to hold those responsible for the January 8 tragedy “accountable,” according to the readout of a call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.

    June 19, 2021 – Ebrahim Raisi wins Iran’s presidential election.

    August 5, 2021 – Raisi is sworn in, replacing Rouhani as president of Iran.

    Source link

  • Iran Hostage Crisis Fast Facts | CNN

    Iran Hostage Crisis Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, in which 52 US citizens were held captive for 444 days.

    1978 – Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi’s authoritarian rule sparks demonstrations and riots.

    January 16, 1979 – The Shah flees Iran and goes to Egypt.

    February 1, 1979 – Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returns to Iran, after 14 years in exile, to lead the country.

    October 22, 1979 – The Shah is allowed to enter the United States to receive medical treatment for cancer.

    November 4, 1979 – Iranian students demonstrating outside of the US embassy in Tehran storm the embassy and take 90 people hostage including 66 Americans. The students demand the extradition of the Shah from the United States. Ayatollah Khomeini issues a statement of support for the students’ actions.

    November 5, 1979 – The Iranian government cancels military treaties with the US and the Soviet Union, treaties that would permit US or Soviet military intervention.

    November 6, 1979 – Premier Mehdi Bazargan and his government resign, leaving Ayatollah Khomeini and the Revolutionary Council in power.

    November 7, 1979 US President Jimmy Carter sends former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and Senate Intelligence Committee staff director William Miller to Iran to negotiate the release of the hostages. Ayatollah Khomeini refuses to meet with them.

    November 14, 1979 – Carter orders Iranian assets in US banks frozen.

    November 17, 1979 – Khomeini orders the release of female and African-American hostages. They are released November 19 and 20, bringing the total number of US hostages to 53.

    December 4, 1979 – The United Nations Security Council passes a resolution calling for Iran to release the hostages.

    December 15, 1979 – The Shah leaves the United States for Panama.

    January 28, 1980 – Six American embassy employees, who avoided capture and hid in the homes of Canadian Embassy officers, flee Iran. In 1997 it is revealed that, along with the Canadian government, the CIA made the escape possible.

    March 1980 – The Shah returns to Egypt.

    April 7, 1980 – President Carter cuts diplomatic ties with Iran, announcing further sanctions and ordering all Iranian diplomats to leave the United States.

    April 25, 1980 – Eight US servicemen are killed when a helicopter and a transport plane collide during a failed attempt to rescue the hostages.

    July 11, 1980 – Another hostage is released due to illness. The total number of US hostages is now 52.

    July 27, 1980 – The Shah dies of cancer in Egypt.

    September 12, 1980 – Ayatollah Khomeini sets new terms for the hostages’ release, including the return of the late Shah’s wealth and the unfreezing of Iranian assets.

    November 1980-January 1981 – Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher and his delegation work through mediators in Algeria to negotiate the release of the hostages.

    January 19, 1981 – The United States and Iran sign an agreement to release the hostages and unfreeze Iranian assets.

    January 20, 1981 – The remaining 52 US hostages are released and flown to Wiesbaden Air Base in Germany.

    December 18, 2015 – Congress passes a budget bill that includes a provision authorizing each of the 53 hostages to receive $10,000 for each day they were held captive. In addition, spouses and children will separately receive a one-time payment of $600,000.

    November 19, 2019 – The act is amended to include victims of the September 11 terror attacks, reducing the amount of available funds to compensate the former hostages.

    Source link

  • David Petraeus Fast Facts | CNN

    David Petraeus Fast Facts | CNN

    Here is a look at the life of David Petraeus, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

    Birth date: November 7, 1952

    Birth place: Cornwall, New York

    Birth name: David Howell Petraeus

    Father: Sixtus Petraeus, Danish-born sea captain

    Mother: Miriam (Howell) Petraeus

    Marriage: Hollister “Holly” Knowlton (July 6, 1974-present)

    Children: Anne and Stephen

    Education: US Military Academy – West Point, B.S., 1974; Princeton University, M.P.A., International Relations, 1985; Princeton University, Ph.D., International Relations, 1987

    Military: US Army, 1974-2011, four-star general

    Growing up in Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York, friends nicknamed Petraeus “Peaches.”

    1974 – Is commissioned as an infantry officer in the US Army upon graduation from West Point.

    1975-1979 Platoon leader, adjutant, 1st Battalion, 509th Airborne Battalion Combat Team in Vicenza, Italy.

    1979-1982 Commander, then aide de camp, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) at Fort Stewart, Georgia.

    1985-1987 – Instructor, then Assistant Professor of Social Sciences, US Military Academy at West Point.

    1987-1988 – Military Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, NATO, Brussels, Belgium.

    1989 Serves as aide to the Army’s chief of staff.

    1991Is shot in the chest during a training exercise at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

    1991-1993 – Commander, 3rd Battalion of the 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division.

    1995-1997Commander, 1st Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division.

    2000Breaks his pelvis during a parachute jump.

    2000-2001 – Chief of staff, XVIII Airborne Corps., US Army, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

    2000Is promoted to brigadier (one star) general.

    2001-2002 – Serves in Bosnia as the assistant chief of staff for military operations of the NATO Stabilization Force.

    2002-2004 – Commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division US Army, Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

    March 2003 – Leads troops into battle as commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the US-led invasion of Iraq.

    June 2004-September 2005 – Commander of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq.

    October 2005-2007 – Commanding general of the Combined Arms Center, US Army, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

    February 2007-September 2008 – Commander of all coalition forces in Iraq.

    October 31, 2008-July 4, 2010 – Commander in Chief of Central Command.

    October 6, 2009 – Announces that he was diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer and underwent two months of radiation treatment.

    June 15, 2010 – Becomes “a little lightheaded” and faints while testifying at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

    July 4, 2010-July 18, 2011 – Commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

    April 28, 2011 – Nominated by President Barack Obama to replace Leon Panetta as CIA director.

    June 30, 2011 – Unanimously confirmed by the US Senate as the next director of the CIA.

    July 18, 2011 – Petraeus turns over command of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan to Gen. John R. Allen.

    August 31, 2011 – Retires from the Army.

    September 6, 2011 – Petraeus is sworn in as the new director of the CIA.

    November 9, 2012 – Petraeus submits his resignation to President Obama, citing personal reasons and admits he had an extramarital affair.

    March 27, 2013 – Publicly apologizes for his extramarital affair during a speech at the University of Southern California.

    May 30, 2013 – It is announced that Petraeus has joined private equity firm KKR as the chairman of a new global institute.

    July 1, 2013 – Joins the University of Southern California faculty as a Judge Widney Professor, “a title reserved for eminent individuals from the arts, sciences, professions, business, and community and national leadership.”

    January 9, 2015 – A federal law enforcement official tells CNN that Justice Department prosecutors are recommending charges be filed against Petraeus for disclosure of classified information to his former lover Paula Broadwell who was working on a book with Petraeus at the time.

    March 3, 2015 – Pleads guilty to one federal charge of removing and retaining classified information as part of a plea deal. According to court documents, Petraeus admitted removing several so-called black books – notebooks in which he kept classified and non-classified information from his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan – and giving them to Broadwell.

    March 16, 2015 – White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirms that the National Security Council and the Obama administration have consulted with Petraeus on matters related to Iraq and ISIS.

    April 23, 2015 – Petraeus is sentenced to serve two years probation and fined $100,000 for sharing classified information with his biographer and lover, Broadwell. Prosecutors agree to not send him to jail because the classified information was never released to the public or published in the biography.

    September 22, 2015 – Petraeus speaks before the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding the US’s Middle East policy. He begins this, his first public hearing since his resignation, with a formal apology for the indiscretions that led to his resignation.

    June 10, 2016 – Along with retired NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, announces that they are launching Veterans Coalition for Common Sense to encourage elected leaders to “do more to prevent gun tragedies.”

    June 12, 2019 The University of Birmingham announces that Petraeus has accepted an honorary professorship in the Institute for Conflict, Cooperation and Security. The three-year position begins immediately.

    Source link

  • Mideast crisis will test whether Biden can make experience an asset | CNN Politics

    Mideast crisis will test whether Biden can make experience an asset | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    The escalating confrontation between Israel and Hamas is offering President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to begin flipping the script on one of his most glaring vulnerabilities in the 2024 presidential race.

    For months, polls have consistently shown that most Americans believe Biden’s advanced age has diminished his capacity to handle the responsibilities of the presidency. But many Democrats believe that Biden’s widely praised response to the Mideast crisis could provide him a pivot point to argue that his age is an asset because it has equipped him with the experience to navigate such a complex challenge.

    “As you project forward, we are going to be able to argue that Joe Biden’s age has been central to his success because in a time of Covid, insurrection, Russian invasion of Ukraine, now challenges in the Middle East, we have the most experienced man ever as president,” said Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg. “Perhaps having the most experienced person ever to go into the Oval Office was a blessing for the country. I think we are going to be able to make that argument forcefully.”

    Biden unquestionably faces a steep climb to ameliorate the concern that he’s too old for the job. Political strategists in both parties agree that those public perceptions are largely rooted in reactions to his physical appearance – particularly the stiffness of his walk and softness of his voice – and thus may be difficult to reverse with arguments about his performance. In a CNN poll released last month, about three-fourths of adults said Biden did not have “the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively as president” and nearly as many said he does not inspire confidence. Even about half of Democrats said Biden lacked enough stamina and sharpness and did not inspire confidence, with a preponderant majority of Democrats younger than 45 expressing those critical views.

    But the crisis in Israel shows the path Biden will probably need to follow if there’s any chance for him to transmute doubts about his age into confidence in his experience. Though critics on the left and right in American politics have raised objections, Biden’s response to the Hamas attack has drawn praise as both resolute and measured from a broad range of leaders across the ideological spectrum in both the US and Israel.

    “Biden is in his element here where relationships matter and his team is experienced (meaning operationally effective) and thoughtful (meaning can see forests as well as trees),” James Steinberg, dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and deputy secretary of state under former President Barack Obama, wrote in an email.

    Similarly, David Friedman, who served as ambassador to Israel for then-President Donald Trump, declared late last week, on Fox News Channel no less, that “The Biden administration over the past 12-13 days has been great.”

    These responses underscore the fundamental political paradox about Biden’s age, and the experience that derives from it. On the one hand, there’s no doubt that his age is increasing anxiety among Democrats about his capacity to serve as an effective candidate for the presidency in 2024; on the other, his experience is increasing Democratic faith in his capacity to serve as an effective president now.

    While more Democrats have been openly pining for another, younger alternative to replace Biden as the party’s nominee next year, many party leaders argued that there was no one from the Democrats’ large 2020 field of presidential candidates, or even among the rising crop of governors and senators discussed as potential successors, that they would trust more at this moment than Biden.

    “No one – not a one,” said Matt Bennett, executive vice president for public affairs at Third Way, an organization of centrist Democrats. “That is genuinely the case. And I get people’s uneasiness about him both because he’s old and he has low poll numbers. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t the best person for the job.”

    Familiarity with an issue is no guarantee of success: Biden took office with a long-standing determination to end the American deployment in Afghanistan but still executed a chaotic withdrawal. But in responding to global challenges, Biden, who was first elected to the Senate in 1972, is drawing on half a century of dealing with issues and players around the world; even George H.W. Bush, the last president who arrived in office with an extensive foreign policy pedigree, had only about two decades of previous high-level exposure to world events.

    This latest crisis has offered more evidence that Biden is more proficient at the aspects of the presidency that unfold offstage than those that occur in public. It’s probably not a coincidence that the private aspects of the presidency are the ones where experience is the greatest asset, while the public elements of the job are those where age may be the greatest burden.

    Biden’s speeches about Ukraine, and especially his impassioned denunciations of the Hamas attack over the past two weeks, have drawn much stronger reviews than most of his addresses on domestic issues. (Bret Stephens, a conservative New York Times columnist often critical of Biden, wrote that his first speech after the attack “deserves a place in any anthology of great American rhetoric.”) In Biden’s nationally televised address about Israel and Ukraine on Thursday, he drew on a long tradition of presidents from both parties who presented American international engagement as the key to world stability, even quoting Franklin D. Roosevelt’s call during World War II for the US to serve as the “arsenal of democracy.”

    But even when Biden was younger, delivering galvanizing speeches was never his greatest strength. No one ever confused him with Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama as a communicator and his performance as president hasn’t changed that verdict. Instead, Biden has been at his best when working with other leaders, at home and abroad, out of the public eye.

    Biden, for instance, passed more consequential legislation than almost anyone expected during his first two years, but he did not do so by rallying public sentiment or barnstorming the country. Rather, in quiet meetings, he helped to orchestrate a surprisingly effective legislative minuet that produced bipartisan agreements on infrastructure and promoting semiconductor manufacturing before culminating in a stunning agreement with holdout Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to pass an expansive package of clean energy and health care initiatives with Democrat votes alone.

    “He’s showed a degree of political dexterity in managing the coalition that would have been very challenging for anyone else,” said Rosenberg. “His years of actually legislating, where he learned how to bring people together and hash stuff out, was really important in keeping the Democratic family together.”

    To the degree Biden has succeeded in international affairs, it has largely been with the same formula of working offstage with other leaders, many of whom he’s known for years, around issues that he has also worked on for years. In the most dramatic example, that sort of private negotiation and collaboration has produced a surprisingly broad and durable international coalition of nations supporting Ukraine against Russia.

    Biden’s effort to manage this latest Mideast crisis is centered on his attempts through private diplomacy to support Israel in its determination to disable Hamas, while minimizing the risk of a wider war and maintaining the possibility of diplomatic agreements after the fighting (including, most importantly, a rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia meant to counter Iranian influence). Administration officials believe that the strong support that Biden has expressed for Israel, not only after the latest attack, but through his long career, has provided him with a credibility among the Israeli public that will increase his leverage to influence, and perhaps restrain, the decisions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    The president “wisely from the very moment of this horror show expressed unfettered solidarity with Israel and that allowed him to then go to Israel and behind closed doors continue the conversation, which I’m sure Secretary [Antony] Blinken started,” said one former senior national security official in the Biden administration, who asked to be anonymous while discussing the situation. That credibility, the former official said, allowed Biden to ask hard questions of the Israelis such as “‘Ok, you are going to send in ground troops and then what? We did shock and awe [in the second Iraq war] and then we found ourselves trapped without a plan. What are you doing? What’s the outcome? Who is going to control Gaza when you’re done whatever you are doing? At least stop and think about this.’”

    In all these ways, the Israel confrontation offers Biden an opportunity to highlight the aspects of the presidency for which he is arguably best suited. In the crisis’ first days, former President Trump also provided Biden exactly the sort of personal contrast Democrats want to create when Trump initially responded to the tragic Hamas attack by airing personal grievances against Netanyahu and criticizing the Israeli response to the attack. For some Democrats, Trump’s off-key response crystallized the contrast they want to present next year to voters: “Biden is quiet competence and Trump is chaos and it’s a real choice,” said Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, vice president and chief strategy officer at Way to Win, a liberal group that funds organizations and campaigns focusing on voters of color.

    Ancona said Biden’s performance since the Hamas attack points to the case Democrats should be preparing to make to voters in 2024. “He’s been a workhorse not a show pony, but that’s something we can talk about,” she said. “You can show a picture of a president working quietly behind the scenes, you can tell a story of how he has your best interests at heart. It is what it is: he’s, what, 80? You can’t get around that. But I do think he has shown he has the capacity and strength and tenacity to do this job. He’s been doing it. So why shouldn’t he get a chance to keep doing it?”

    Likewise, Rosenberg argues, “In my view you can’t separate his age from his successes as president. He’s been successful because of his age and experience not in spite of it, and we have to rethink that completely.”

    Other Democrats, though, aren’t sure that Biden can neutralize concerns about his age by making a case for the benefits of his experience. One Democratic pollster familiar with thinking in the Biden campaign, who asked for anonymity while discussing the 2024 landscape, said that highlighting Biden’s experience would only produce limited value for him so long as most voters are dissatisfied with conditions in the country. “The problem with the experience side is that people feel bad,” the pollster said. “If people felt like his accomplishments improved things for them, they wouldn’t care about his age. … The problem with the age vs. experience [argument] is that experience has to produce results for them, but experience isn’t producing results.”

    William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and long-time Democratic strategist, sees another limit to the experience argument. Like most Democrats, Galston believes that Biden’s response to the crisis has, in fact, demonstrated the value of his long track record on international issues. “This is where all of his instincts, honed by decades of experience, come into play,” Galston said. “He knows which people to call when; he knows whom to send where. As was the case in [Ukraine], this is the sort of episode where Biden is at his best.”

    The problem, Galston argues, is that voters can see the value of Biden’s experience in dealing with world events today and still worry he could not effectively handle the presidency for another term. “It’s not a logical contradiction,” Galston said, for voters to believe that “‘Yes, over the first four years of his presidency, his experience proved its value, and he had enough energy and focus to be able to draw on it when he needed it’ and at the same time say, ‘I am very worried that over the next four years, in the tension between the advantages of experience and disadvantages of age, that balance is going to shift against him.’”

    To assuage concerns about his capacity, Biden will need not only to “tell” voters about the value of his experience but to “show” them his vigor through a rigorous campaign schedule, Galston said. “The experience argument is necessary, but not sufficient,” Galston maintains. “In addition to that argument, assuming it can be made well and convincingly, I think he is going to have to show through his conduct of the campaign that he’s up for another four years.”

    Biden’s trips into active war zones in Ukraine and Israel have provided dramatic images that his campaign is already using to make that case. As Galston suggests, the president will surely need to prove the point again repeatedly in 2024.

    But most analysts agree that what the president most needs to demonstrate in the months ahead is not energy, but results. His supporters have reason for optimism that Biden’s carefully calibrated response to the Israel-Hamas hostilities will allow them to present him as a reassuring source of stability in an unstable world – in stark contrast to the unpredictability and chaos that Trump, his most likely 2024 opponent, perpetually generates. But Biden’s management of this volatile conflict will help him make that argument only if its outcome, in fact, promotes greater stability in the Middle East. If nothing else, Biden’s long experience has surely taught him how difficult stability will be to achieve in a region once again teetering on the edge of explosion.

    Source link

  • Biden plans to use Oval Office address to make case for wartime aid to Israel and Ukraine | CNN Politics

    Biden plans to use Oval Office address to make case for wartime aid to Israel and Ukraine | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden plans to make a direct appeal to the American people to continue funding Ukraine and Israel amid their war efforts in an Oval Office address Thursday, according to two administration officials.

    The primetime address will take place on the eve of the White House requesting north of $100 billion from Congress to deliver aid and resources to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the US border with Mexico. Biden is expected to make the argument that supporting Ukraine and Israel is a matter of US national security when the world is at an inflection point.

    “He’s going to make the case that the cost of inaction and the cost of walking away is much higher,” according to one official.

    The Biden administration in August delivered its last so-called supplemental funding request, which encapsulates unique requests beyond traditional government programs. The proposal requested $24.1 billion to aid Ukraine through the end of the year, but Congress failed to approve it during a process to greenlight short-term federal funding.

    As he watched the horrific scenes of violence unfold in Israel, Biden expressed to his top advisers in recent days a desire to speak directly to the American people about the importance of supporting United States’ allies that are fighting back unprompted attacks.

    That desire set in motion days of planning and speechwriting for Biden’s Thursday primetime speech to be delivered from the Oval Office, one senior administration official told CNN. The president made clear to his advisers that the speech should emphasize that the US’s support for Ukraine and Israel is not just a powerful message to send to the world, but a matter of US national security, as well.

    Advisers expect that as with any major speech, the president himself will be making final touches and edits to the prepared remarks in the hours leading up to the speech.

    Public opinion regarding US assistance has been mixed.

    In a recent CNN poll, nearly all respondents were sympathetic with the Israeli people in the wake of surprise attacks launched by Hamas, but there was no clear consensus on the right level of US involvement. One-third (35%) said the US is providing the right amount of assistance – and another 36% were unsure whether the level of US assistance is appropriate. The US has long provided security assistance to Israel, which receives roughly $4 billion annually under a 10-year memorandum of understanding. The new request would provide billions more.

    By contrast, support to sustain aid to Ukraine has waned significantly since Russia’s unprovoked invasion in February 2022. An August CNN poll found 55% of respondents said Congress should not pass more funding to aid Ukraine. The partisan divide has been deepening, too: Nearly three-quarters of Republicans opposed more funding for Ukraine, while 62% of Democrats supported it.

    Since Russia’s invasion, the White House and Congress have provided more than $75 billion in funding to Kyiv, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen pledged to European leaders on Monday that the US would be able to secure support for additional aid and, in an interview with Sky News, said Washington could afford financing two war efforts at once.

    “American can certainly afford to stand with Israel and to support Israel’s military needs, and we also can and must support Ukraine in its struggle against Russia.”

    Biden’s upcoming remarks, first announced Wednesday, come on the heels of his wartime visit to the Middle East, which went on even after a blast tore through a hospital in Gaza. While his planned stop in Amman, Jordan, to meet Arab leaders was canceled just as the president was preparing to depart the White House, Biden did spend hours on the ground in Tel Aviv.

    Officials on Wednesday sought to downplay the cancellation, saying it was natural for President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority to return to the West Bank to mourn the dead. Later, Biden scoffed at the suggestion he was disappointed the meeting had been canceled.

    “Disappointed? Look, I came to get something done. I got it done,” he said. “Not many people thought we could get this done, and not many people want to be associated with failure.”

    For Biden, a trip in the formative days of a potentially drawn-out conflict amounted to the ultimate test of his confidence – built over decades – that getting in the same room can influence people and events.

    The US, Egypt and Israel have all signaled readiness for aid to begin moving into Gaza, following Biden’s high-profile visit.

    in a meeting that stretched well past what officials had expected, Biden sought to use his decades-long relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – one that has endured significant strain over the past year – to offer advice and seek commitments on the flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

    Beforehand, officials said Biden would approach the Israeli leader with “tough questions” about the path forward and Israel’s intentions as it seeks to eliminate Hamas in Gaza. Speaking later, Biden offered a glimpse of how those conversations went, or at least his side of them.

    “I caution this: While you feel that rage, don’t be consumed by it,” Biden told his audience, a collection of Israelis and Americans.

    “I know the choices are never clear or easy for the leadership,” Biden went on, recalling mistakes the United States made after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “There’s always cost, but it requires being deliberate, requires asking very hard questions. That requires clarity about the objectives and an honest assessment about whether the path you’re on will achieve those objectives.”

    Source link

  • Supreme Court declines to revisit landmark libel ruling, though Clarence Thomas wants to reconsider the decision | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court declines to revisit landmark libel ruling, though Clarence Thomas wants to reconsider the decision | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to revisit the landmark First Amendment decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, rebuffing a request to take another look at decades-old precedent that created a higher bar for public figures to claim libel in civil suits.

    The media world has for years relied on the unanimous decision in the 1964 case to fend off costly defamation lawsuits brought by public figures. The ruling established the requirement that public figures show “actual malice” before they can succeed in a libel dispute.

    Despite being a mainstay in US media law, the Sullivan decision has increasingly come under fire by conservatives both inside and outside the court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who said on Tuesday that he still wanted to revisit Sullivan at some point.

    “In an appropriate case, however, we should reconsider New York Times and our other decisions displacing state defamation law,” Thomas wrote in a brief concurrence to the court’s decision not to take up the case. He said that the case, Don Blankenship v. NBC Universal, LLC, was a poor vehicle to reconsider Sullivan.

    Just a few months ago, the conservative justice attacked the ruling in Sullivan in a fiery dissent in which he called it “flawed.” Thomas issued other public critiques of Sullivan in recent years, including in 2019, when he wrote that the ruling and “the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.”

    The case at hand concerns Don Blankenship, a former coal baron who was convicted of a federal conspiracy offense related to a deadly 2010 explosion at a mine he ran, in what was one of the worst US mine disasters in decades. His sentence of a year in prison was one day less than a felony sentence.

    “Blankenship himself admits this was a highly unusual sentence for a misdemeanor offense; he notes that he was the only inmate at his prison who was not serving a sentence for a felony conviction,” according to a lower-court opinion in the case.

    During his unsuccessful 2018 US Senate campaign in West Virginia, a number of media organizations erroneously reported that he was a convicted felon, even though his conspiracy offense was classified as a misdemeanor.

    Blankenship sued a slew of news outlets for the error, alleging defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Lower courts ruled against him, finding that the outlets did not make the statements with actual malice, the standard required by Sullivan.

    Attorneys for Blankenship told the justices in court papers that the “damage was irreparable” since no felon has ever been elected to the Senate, and urged them to overturn the Sullivan decision.

    “The actual malice standard poses a clear and present danger to our democracy,” they wrote. “New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and its progeny grant the press a license to publish defamatory falsehoods that misinform voters, manipulate elections, intensify polarization, and incite unrest.”

    Attorneys for the media outlets urged the justices not to take up the case, arguing that it’s “as poor a vehicle as one could imagine to consider” questions related to Sullivan’s holding because, they said, the reporting mistakes were honest ones.

    “There is good reason why the actual malice standard of New York Times has been embraced for so long and so often,” the media organizations told the justices. “At its essence, the standard protects ‘erroneous statements honestly made.’ While it permits recovery for falsehoods uttered with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, it provides the ‘breathing space’ required for ‘free debate.’ A free people engaged in self-government deserves no less.”

    Just last year the court declined to revisit Sullivan in a case brought by a not-for-profit Christian ministry against the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    At the time, Thomas dissented from the court’s refusal to take up the case.

    “I would grant certiorari in this case to revisit the ‘actual malice’ standard,” he wrote. “This case is one of many showing how New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’”

    In 2021, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch also questioned the decision in Sullivan, writing in a dissent when the court decided not to take up a defamation case that the 1964 ruling should be revisited in part because it “has come to leave far more people without redress than anyone could have predicted.”

    Source link

  • Biden interviewed in special counsel’s probe into classified documents found at his home, former office | CNN Politics

    Biden interviewed in special counsel’s probe into classified documents found at his home, former office | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden over the last two days participated in a voluntary interview with special counsel Robert Hur as a part of his classified documents investigation, the White House announced Monday.

    “The President has been interviewed as part of the investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Hur,” White House counsel’s office spokesperson Ian Sams wrote in a statement Monday. “The voluntary interview was conducted at the White House over two days, Sunday and Monday, and concluded Monday.”

    “As we have said from the beginning, the President and the White House are cooperating with this investigation, and as it has been appropriate, we have provided relevant updates publicly, being as transparent as we can consistent with protecting and preserving the integrity of the investigation,” Sams continued, referring additional questions to the Justice Department.

    The interview marks the first major development in the case known to the public in months and stands in stark contrast to Biden’s predecessor. Former President Donald Trump never interviewed with special counsel Robert Mueller during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election despite extensive negotiations over a potential interview. Trump currently faces criminal charges in two separate special counsel investigations, including one regarding his own handling of classified documents after he left the presidency in January 2021.

    The interview comes months after Biden told CNN there had been “no such request and no such interest” for an interview with the special counsel in the investigation.

    A spokesperson for Hur, who oversees the Justice Department’s probe into classified documents found at Biden’s home and former private office, declined to comment to CNN.

    The interview was scheduled weeks ago, according to a person familiar with the matter. It came as Biden spent the three-day holiday weekend in Washington, a rare occurrence.

    The decision to stay at the White House seemed fortuitous as war erupted in Israel but in reality, the choice to skip traveling to one of his Delaware homes was weeks in the making so the president could sit for the interview. Few people inside the White House were aware of the plans, and there was little indication to those who were working there this weekend that the interview was in the works.

    On Saturday morning, the president woke up to urgent news from his senior advisers: Israel was under attack. He convened a meeting of his national security team at 8:15 a.m ET.

    The hours that followed would be filled with a whirlwind of activity for Biden, as he received multiple briefings by his top national security advisers, got on the phone with world leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office, and addressed the nation from the State Dining Room.

    The president had a light public schedule Sunday and Monday with no public events, and reporters were given relatively early notice that Biden would not have any public appearances. On Monday, the president met with administration officials about the fighting in Israel in the morning and spoke with allies in the afternoon.

    Some of Biden’s closest advisers were spotted at the White House over the weekend, including chief of staff Jeff Zients and senior advisers Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn, who is married to Bob Bauer, the president’s personal attorney. The group huddled in the Treaty Room of the White House residence on Saturday to go over Biden’s planned remarks on Israel.

    On Sunday, Biden remained out of public view, though he did speak with Netanyahu by telephone. His interview for the special counsel investigation went undetected by most of those in the building.

    That evening, he hosted a barbeque for White House residence staffers that included live music. On Monday, he continued the interview – even as events in Israel occupied his agenda. Biden stayed out of the public eye, with the White House calling a lid before noon Monday.

    Hur was appointed in January to investigate incidents of classified documents being found at Biden’s former Washington, DC, office and his Wilmington, Delaware, home. Upon announcing the investigation, Attorney General Merrick Garland laid out a timeline of the case that began with the Washington discovery in November 2022.

    The National Archives informed a DOJ prosecutor on November 4 that the White House had made the Archives aware of documents with classified markings that had been found at Biden’s think tank, which was not authorized to store classified materials, Garland said.

    The Archives told the prosecutor that the documents has been secured in an Archives facility. The FBI opened an initial assessment five days later, and on November 14, then-US Attorney John Lausch was tasked with leading that preliminary inquiry. The next month, on December 20, White House counsel informed Lausch of the second batch of apparently classified documents found at Biden’s Wilmington home, according to Garland’s account. Hours before the announcement of Hur’s appointment, a personal attorney for Biden called Lausch and informed him that an additional document marked as classified had been found at Biden’s home.

    The documents were found “among personal and political papers,” according to a statement from the president’s legal team. The FBI later searched Biden’s Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, home in February and found no additional documents.

    While Biden has not often commented on the case, he said in January that he was surprised to learn that classified documents were found in his former office.

    “I was surprised to learn there were any government records that were taken there to that office,” Biden said in response to a reporter’s question at a news conference in Mexico City, where he was attending a trilateral summit with the leaders of Mexico and Canada.

    He emphasized at the time that he did not know what was in the documents. As CNN previously reported, US intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics including Ukraine, Iran and the United Kingdom were among them, according to a source familiar with the matter. Biden didn’t know the documents were there, and didn’t become aware they were there, until his personal lawyers informed the White House counsel’s office, one source familiar with the matter told CNN.

    The president said his attorneys “did what they should have done” by immediately calling the Archives.

    “People know I take classified documents, classified information seriously,” Biden added, saying that the documents were found in “a box, locked cabinet – or at least a closet.”

    After documents were found in his Wilmington home later in January, Biden said he was cooperating fully with the Justice Department. Biden added that the documents were in a “locked garage.”

    “It’s not like they’re sitting out on the street,” he insisted when a reporter asked why he was storing classified material next to a sports car.

    This story has been updated with additional reporting.

    Source link

  • 9 US citizens dead in Israel conflict, US National Security Council says | CNN Politics

    9 US citizens dead in Israel conflict, US National Security Council says | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Nine US citizens have died in the conflict in Israel, a US National Security Council spokesperson said Monday.

    “At this time, we can confirm the death of nine U.S. citizens. We extend our deepest condolences to the victims and to the families of all those affected, and wish those injured a speedy recovery. We continue to monitor the situation closely and remain in touch with our Israeli partners, particularly the local authorities,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

    The spokesperson added, “We continue to monitor the situation closely and remain in touch with our Israeli partners, particularly the local authorities.”

    US authorities have been scrambling to establish how many Americans have been killed or taken hostage in the conflict. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” Sunday that the US was “working overtime” to verify reports of missing and dead Americans, and Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer said Americans are among the “scores” of hostages being held in Gaza.

    State Department spokesman Matt Miller told CNN’s Phil Mattingly on Monday that US authorities are in close contact with Israel’s government and the families of those affected by the attack.

    This story is breaking and will be updated.

    Source link

  • Bidens’ dog, Commander, involved in more White House biting incidents than previously reported | CNN Politics

    Bidens’ dog, Commander, involved in more White House biting incidents than previously reported | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden and first lady Dr. Jill Biden’s 2-year-old German shepherd, Commander, has been involved in more biting incidents than previously reported at the White House, multiple sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

    While the US Secret Service has acknowledged 11 reported biting incidents involving its personnel, sources who spoke to CNN said the real number is higher and includes executive residence staff and other White House workers. Those bites have ranged in severity, from one known bite requiring hospitalization to some requiring attention from the White House Medical Unit to some going unreported and untreated.

    While the first family works for solutions to the ongoing issue, CNN has learned, Commander is not on the White House campus.

    “The President and First Lady care deeply about the safety of those who work at the White House and those who protect them every day. They remain grateful for the patience and support of the U.S. Secret Service and all involved, as they continue to work through solutions,” Elizabeth Alexander, communications director for the first lady, said in a statement released first to CNN.

    Alexander continued, “Commander is not presently on the White House campus while next steps are evaluated.”

    It’s unclear if there is an official count of the bites, and US Secret Service chief of communications Anthony Guglielmi told CNN there is not a complete number. CNN spoke to four sources familiar with the incidents who work at the White House complex, and additional sources with knowledge of what happened. None could put an exact number on the incidents, some of which may not have been followed up on like the 11 known cases. Though DC-area hospitals and urgent cares are required to report patients treated for dog bites to the DC Department of Health, the White House Medical Unit is not required to report dog bites since it is under federal jurisdiction.

    One source familiar with the incidents pointed to efforts from their colleagues to adjust Secret Service workplace habits amid broader concerns about workplace safety as they work to support the first family at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The situation has also revealed broader tensions between the Bidens and the US Secret Service. Sources suggest the relationship between the first family and the US Secret Service was first strained when the family’s elder dog, Major, caused an injury to an unnamed Secret Service agent before ultimately being sent away more permanently to Delaware. That incident caused a breach in trust, a source familiar with the dynamic said.

    Major also had biting incidents with an engineer, per a witness to the incident, and a National Park Service employee, previously reported by CNN in spring 2021.

    While the Bidens enjoyed a good relationship with Secret Service during the vice presidency, the Major situation caused “stress” for the first couple in their early days at the White House. That laid the foundation for a “combustible” relationship with Secret Service, which has since been exacerbated by numerous “last minute changes” to schedules – including spending most weekends away from the White House at Camp David or one of their Delaware residences – and “unrealistic requests” that strain the agency’s resources, the source familiar with the relationship dynamic said.

    There had also been questions of USSS agents’ political loyalty to former President Donald Trump, as detailed by Biden allies to The Washington Post during the presidential transition in late 2020.

    Guglielmi strongly disputed any reports of tension between Secret Service and the Bidens.

    “On this I can say with firsthand knowledge that it is categorically false. There is an immense degree of trust and respect between the Secret Service and the first family and we know those feelings are mutual,” Guglielmi told CNN.

    Despite assertions that Commander would receive training, the biting incidents keep happening. The last confirmed bite took place last Monday. The White House has also declined to answer CNN’s inquiry on a specific number of biting incidents involving Commander.

    “We’re beyond the point of worrying about trust being broken. We have to speak up,” a source familiar with the president’s Secret Service detail said.

    That source, who requested anonymity to speak freely, described a “hostile” and “dangerous” work environment, suggesting that some agents have been warned to go through certain entrances and avoid certain areas to evade an interaction with the dog. The Secret Service communicates to its agents by radio when the dog is outdoors, and officers avoid the area.

    That source said a supervisor told them that there had been a large number of incidents of Commander biting this past summer “as a way to warn me of how concerning the situation was.”

    The Secret Service is in communication with the White House on “how best to operate” in the environment.

    “The Secret Service is tasked with ensuring the security of the White House complex, while minimizing operational impact to those who work and live there. We take the safety and wellbeing of our employees extremely seriously, and while special agents and officers neither care for nor handle the first family’s pets, we continue to work with the White House to update our guidance on how to best operate in an environment that includes pets,” Guglielmi said.

    The documented bites have ranged in severity. One of the previously reported incidents was described as “playful.”

    “Looks like the dog was being playful but playful can go wrong quickly,” a USSS Uniformed Division captain said in an October 2022 email obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch.

    But a November 2022 incident, which was also previously reported, required a Uniformed Division USSS officer to be hospitalized for evaluation, according to those emails. And last week’s incident required treatment “by medical personnel” on the White House complex.

    Commander becoming ‘a serious issue’ at the White House

    The White House has largely downplayed the cacophony of media reports and analysis following CNN’s reporting on last week’s incident, pointing reporters to previous statements on the stressful environment at the White House. But to Jonathan Wackrow, a former US Secret Service Agent on then-first lady Michelle Obama’s detail and now a CNN contributor, the situation cannot be ignored.

    “Imagine you’re the owner of a business, a CEO of a company, you bring your dog in, and your dog keeps biting employees. You’re creating an unsafe work environment. And that’s what’s happening now,” said Wackrow.

    “There’s uniqueness here where it’s the residence of the president of the United States, but it’s also the workplace for hundreds, if not thousands, of people. And you can’t bring a hazard into the workplace and that’s what is essentially happening with this dog. One time, you can say it’s an accident, but now multiple incidents is a serious issue,”

    The Bidens, a White House official said, have taken the situation seriously.

    “They’ve been working diligently with Secret Service, with trainers, with veterinarians, with the residence staff and others on this – they have been taking this very seriously, and for months,” the official said.

    The Bidens have long been dog owners, and much like any other family member, the topic of their dog’s behavior is a “sensitive subject” for staff to raise, the source familiar with the dynamic said.

    “The pets are like their children, and they are bonded to them because they are loved and cared for just like all members of the family,” said Michael LaRosa, former press secretary to the first lady.

    Champ, also a German shepherd, lived at the vice president’s residence, which has a much smaller security footprint. Champ passed away at the Biden family home in Wilmington, Delaware, in June 2021 at the age of 13.

    LaRosa suggested that the loss of Champ, who died, and Major, who was sent away, both within a six-month period, was a “jarring experience” and an “abrupt disruption to their family life.”

    “The public nature of those challenges with the dogs and then losing them made it all more stressful for both the president and first lady,” LaRosa said.

    first puppy bidens white house

    Bringing Champ and Major to the White House was an adjustment, Jill Biden told Kelly Clarkson during a 2021 appearance on her talk show.

    “They have to take the elevator, they’re not used to that, and they have to go out on the South Lawn with lots of people watching them. So that’s what I’ve been obsessed with, getting everybody settled and calm,” she said.

    When she’s in Washington, the first lady takes the dog for a walk in the early mornings before heading to school for the day. But during the day, there’s a rotating cast of executive residence staff who take the dog out, and also transport Commander and the cat, Willow, to the Bidens’ weekend destinations (in separate cages), a source familiar with the process said.

    The lack of consistency could be part of the behavioral problem, according to Ryan Bulson, a local dog trainer and president of Mid-Atlantic German Shepherd Rescue.

    “It’s a German shepherd. They need structure. They need consistency. They need boundaries. They are a guardian breed. … When you’re looking at different people holding that leash, I would guarantee that there is no consistency amongst all of them,” Bulson said, pointing to the different tensions and distances with which the different walkers would leash the dog, and different wording of commands, like “heel” or “walk.”

    Bulson, speaking through his expertise with German shepherds and as a dog trainer, has not specifically worked with Commander, nor does he have inside knowledge into the walking process.

    White House officials have previously said that Commander would be receiving remedial training, though they were unable to answer whether that had taken place in the aftermath of reporting on 10 incidents this summer.

    Bulson said it’s critical after any training is complete that the owners of the dog and any other handlers are speaking from the same script and continuing to do the hard work of ongoing training together.

    He warned that re-training Commander, who has displayed aggressive behavior and subsequently repeated it, could be a challenge.

    Asked if it was too late, Bulson said it’s up to the Bidens.

    “If they don’t, as the humans, change their behaviors, then yes, it’s too late. They’re going to have to change their behaviors first before you can even think about changing the dog’s behaviors. Because they’re enabling, that’s what it boils down to. If they don’t change the way they handle and care for the dog … and learn and make a conscious effort to and legitimately say, ‘I am going to change my ways to set the dog up for success,’ if they can’t do that, that dog’s never going to be able to be helped in their care. They have to make that decision,” he said.

    The situation also underscores an uneven set of rules applying to a White House pet – though the legal ground itself is murky.

    Local DC laws “are not applicable on federal properties, including White House grounds,” a DC Council official said. The White House falls under federal jurisdiction.

    However, there aren’t many federal laws that address, regulate, or protect animals, creating a “gap,” said Kathy Hessler, assistant dean for animal legal education at George Washington University Law School.

    “It’s possible that certainly people could allege absent any federal regulation that the DC code would apply. And I think the opposite could also be argued. It’s not clear to me what outcome would happen in that kind of a dispute,” Hessler said.

    Under DC code applying to any other Washingtonian dog, Hessler explained, dog bites are supposed to be reported. That initiates a process for quarantining the animal to make sure there’s no risk of rabies. And then a determination is made, based on the facts surrounding the bite, on whether the dog is dangerous. That can result in a fine of a few hundred dollars, with impoundment a more serious potential consequence.

    As incidents involving Commander mount, Hessler warned that the situation can no longer be ignored for the well-being of the dog, White House staff and the Biden family.

    “I think the simple thing would be to remove Commander from that environment, at least temporarily, to see if these behaviors can be ameliorated, if they’re repeating in a different situation — so that people can get more data upon which they can make an informed decision about whether this is going to work, or whether some different decisions need to be taken for the benefit of everybody,” Hessler said.

    It’s all led to a difficult situation for the first family, for those who feel they have been put in danger, and, sadly, for the dog.

    “It doesn’t matter if we were talking about the president, the pope, it doesn’t matter to me. I take that title out of the equation. I look at the dog. … At the end of the day, I feel the worst for the dog first. Second of all, I feel just as bad for the people that dog had bitten. Because the dog has been set up to fail. If you can’t give the dog what the dog needs, then get a goldfish,” Bulson said.

    Source link

  • The fate of this consumer watchdog is in the hands of the Supreme Court | CNN Business

    The fate of this consumer watchdog is in the hands of the Supreme Court | CNN Business


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    On Tuesday, the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in a case that will determine the fate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    The case was brought on by the Community Financial Services Association of America, a trade group representing payday lenders.

    The group scored a victory last year in a case it brought before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans. The three-judge panel ruled the CFPB’s funding violates the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause and separation of powers. The Supreme Court will have the final say on that, however.

    The consumer watchdog agency was created after the 2008 financial crisis by way of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The agency was the brainchild of Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren. She began advocating for it in 2007 when she was a Harvard Law School professor.

    The broad purpose of the CFPB is to protect consumers from financial abuses and to serve as the central agency for consumer financial protection authorities.

    Prior to the CFPB’s formation, “[c]onsumer financial protection had not been the primary focus of any federal agency, and no agency had effective tools to set the rules for and oversee the whole market,” the agency said on its site.

    The CFPB is funded by the Federal Reserve in an effort to keep the agency independent from political pressure. It also means that the agency doesn’t depend on Congressional appropriations funds.

    While there are critics of the agency’s current structure and funding, it has saved consumers money, made it easier for them to seek redress and to get better clarity and more tailored responses from companies when they have a problem with their accounts, loans or credit reports.

    “Today virtually all financial transactions for residential real estate in the United States depend upon compliance with the CFPB’s rules, and consumers rely on the rights and protections provided by those rules,” the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Homebuilders and the National Association of Realtors said in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court.

    For instance, the CFPB recently ordered Bank of America to pay $100 million to customers and $90 million in penalties saying that the nation’s second-largest bank harmed consumers by double-dipping on fees, withholding credit card rewards and opening fake accounts.

    The CFPB also took action against Wells Fargo after the agency found the bank had been engaging in multiple abusive and unlawful consumer practices across several financial products between 2011 and 2022 — from auto loans to mortgage loans to bank accounts.

    The agency ordered the bank to pay a $1.7 billion civil penalty in addition to more than $2 billion to compensate consumers.

    The Supreme Court’s decision, which likely won’t be announced until the spring of 2024, has far-reaching implications.

    If the Supreme Court finds the CFPB’s funding structure unconstitutional, it could shutter the agency and invalidate all of its prior rulings.

    “Without those rules substantial uncertainty would arise as to how to undertake mortgage transactions in accordance with federal law,” the associations said in their joint brief. “The housing market could descend into chaos, to the detriment of all mortgage borrowers,” they added.

    It could also call into question the constitutionality of other government agencies like the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that also aren’t funded by Congressional appropriations.

    “We are confident in the constitutionality of the statute that created the CFPB within the Federal Reserve System and provides its funding,” Sam Gilford, a spokesperson for the CFPB, told CNN in a statement. “We will continue to carry out the vital work Congress has charged us to perform.”

    There’s also a way for the Supreme Court to change the CFPB’s funding structure in a way that wouldn’t invalidate prior rulings, said Joseph Lynyak III, a partner at the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney and a regulatory reform expert.

    “This result would be far more probable rather than voiding the last decade of the CFPB’s activity,” he added.

    From listening to the case on Tuesday, though, Lynyak believes the Supreme Court will rule that the CFPB’s funding structure is constitutional.

    “As we have argued from the outset, the CFPB’s unique funding mechanism lacks any contemporary or historical precedent,” said Noel Francisco, a lawyer arguing on behalf of those challenging the constitutionality of the CFPB’s funding structure.

    He added that it “improperly shields the agency from congressional oversight and accountability, and unconstitutionally strips Congress of its power of the purse under the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution.

    But both Republican and Democratic-appointed justices told Francisco on Tuesday they could not understand the crux of his argument.

    “I’m at a total loss,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Echoing her remarks, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, “we’re all struggling to figure out what’s the standard that you would use.”

    Source link

  • Takeaways from President Biden’s first impeachment hearing by House Oversight panel | CNN Politics

    Takeaways from President Biden’s first impeachment hearing by House Oversight panel | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    House Republicans kicked off their first impeachment inquiry hearing Thursday laying out the allegations they will pursue against President Joe Biden, though their expert witnesses acknowledged Republicans don’t yet have the evidence to prove the accusation they’re leveling.

    Thursday’s hearing in the House Oversight Committee didn’t include witnesses who could speak directly to Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealing at the center of the inquiry, but the hearing offered Republicans the chance to show some of the evidence they’ve uncovered to date.

    None of that evidence has shown Joe Biden received any financial benefit from his son’s business dealings, but Republicans said at Thursday’s hearing what they’ve found so far has given them the justification to launch their impeachment inquiry.

    Democrats responded by accusing Republicans of doing Donald Trump’s bidding and raising his and his family’s various foreign dealings themselves, as well as Trump’s attempts to get Ukraine to investigate in 2019 the same allegations now being raised in the impeachment inquiry.

    Here’s takeaways from Thursday’s first impeachment inquiry hearing:

    While Republicans leveled accusations of corruption against Joe Biden over his son’s business dealings, the GOP expert witnesses who testified Thursday were not ready to go that far.

    Forensic accountant Bruce Dubinsky, one of the GOP witnesses, undercut Republicans’ main narrative by saying there wasn’t enough evidence yet for him to conclude that there was “corruption” by the Bidens.

    “I am not here today to even suggest that there was corruption, fraud or wrongdoing,” Dubinsky said. “More information needs to be gathered before I can make such an assessment.”

    He said there was a “smokescreen” surrounding Hunter Biden’s finances, including complex overseas shell companies, which he said raise questions for a fraud expert about possible “illicit” activities.

    Conservative law professor Jonathan Turley also said that the House does not yet have evidence to support articles of impeachment against Joe Biden, but argued that House Republicans were justified in opening an impeachment inquiry.

    “I want to emphasize what it is that we’re here today for. This is a question of an impeachment inquiry. It is not a vote on articles of impeachment,” Turley said. “In fact, I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment. That is something that an inquiry has to establish. But I also do believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden.”

    Turley said that Biden’s false statements about his knowledge of Hunter Biden’s business endeavors, as well as the unproven allegations that Biden may have benefited from his son’s business deals, were reason for the House to move forward with the impeachment inquiry. (CNN has previously reported that Joe Biden’s unequivocal denials of any business-related contact with his son have been undercut over time, including by evidence uncovered by House Republicans.)

    Turley, a George Washington University Law School professor, has repeatedly backed up Republican arguments on key legal matters in recent years, including his opposition to Trump’s first and second impeachments.

    Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, pushed Turley further on his comments, asking whether he would vote “no” today on impeachment.

    “On this evidence, certainly,” Turley said. “At the moment, these are allegations. There is some credible evidence there that is the basis of the allegations.”

    Witnesses are sworn in before the House Oversight Committee on September 28, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

    House Republicans opened their first impeachment hearing Thursday with a series of lofty claims against the president, as they try to connect him to his son’s “corrupt” business dealings overseas.

    House Oversight Chairman Rep. James Comer claimed the GOP probes have “uncovered a mountain of evidence revealing how Joe Biden abused his public office for his family’s financial gain,” even though he hasn’t put forward any concrete evidence backing up that massive allegation.

    Two other Republican committee chairs further pressed their case, including by citing some of the newly released Internal Revenue Service documents, which two IRS whistleblowers claim show how the Justice Department intervened in the Hunter Biden criminal probe to protect the Biden family. However, many of their examples of alleged wrongdoing occurred during the Trump administration before Joe Biden took office.

    Ahead of the hearing, the Republican chairs released a formal framework laying out the scope of their probe, saying it “will span the time of Joe Biden’s Vice Presidency to the present, including his time out of office.”

    The document outlines specific lines of inquiry, including whether Biden engaged in “corruption, bribery, and influence peddling” – none of which Republicans have proved yet.

    The memo included four questions the Republicans are seeking to answer related to whether Biden took any action related to payments his family received or if the president obstructed the investigations into Hunter Biden.

    House Oversight Committee ranking Democratic member Rep. Jamie Raskin speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on September 28, 2023.

    At the close of the hearing Thursday, Comer announced that he was issuing subpoenas for the bank records of the president’s son, Hunter Biden, and brother, James Biden.

    The subpoenas will be for Hunter and James Biden’s personal and business bank records, a source familiar with the subpoenas confirmed.

    The subpoenas are not a surprise, as Comer has been signaling his intention to issue the subpoenas for the personal bank records. They show where Republicans will head next in their investigation as they continue to seek evidence to substantiate their unproven allegations about the president.

    Some inside the GOP expressed frustration to CNN in real time with how the House GOP’s first impeachment inquiry hearing is playing out, as the Republican witnesses directly undercut the GOP’s own narrative and admit there is no evidence that Biden has committed impeachable offenses.

    “You want witnesses that make your case. Picking witnesses that refute House Republicans arguments for impeachment is mind blowing,” one senior GOP aide told CNN. “This is an unmitigated disaster.”

    One GOP lawmaker also expressed some disappointment with their performance thus far, telling CNN: “I wish we had more outbursts.”

    The bar for Thursday’s hearing was set low: Republicans admitted they would not reveal any new evidence, but were hoping to at least make the public case for why their impeachment inquiry is warranted, especially as some of their own members remain skeptical of the push.

    But some Republicans are not even paying attention, as Congress is on the brink of a shutdown – a point Democrats hammered during the hearing.

    “I haven’t watched or listened to a moment of it,” said another GOP lawmaker. There’s a shutdown looming.”

    Rep Jim Jordan delivers remarks during the House Oversight Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on September 28, 2023 in Washington, DC.

    Democrats repeatedly pointed out that the Republican allegations about foreign payments were tied to money that went mostly Hunter Biden – but not the to the president.

    “The majority sits completely empty handed with no evidence of any presidential wrongdoing, no smoking gun, no gun, no smoke,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Oversight committee.

    Raskin’s staff brought in the 12,000 pages of bank records the committee has received so far, as Raskin said, “not a single page shows a dime going to President Joe Biden.”

    Raskin also had a laptop open displaying a countdown clock for when the government shuts down in a little more than two days – another point Democrats used to bash Republicans for focusing on impeachment and failing to pass bills to fund the government. The Democrats passed the laptop around to each lawmaker as they had their five minutes to question the witnesses.

    Their arguments also previewed how Democrats intend to play defense for the White House as Republicans move forward on their impeachment inquiry.

    The Democrats needled Republicans for not holding a vote on an impeachment inquiry – one Democrat asked Turley whether he would recommend a vote, which Turley said he would.

    Rep. Jamie Raskin speaks on the Democratic side of the aisle, as the House Oversight Committee begins an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, Thursday, Sept. 28, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

    House Democrats’ 2019 impeachment of Trump was sparked by Trump’s attempts to push Ukraine to investigate allegations involving Biden and his son’s position on the board of a Ukrainian energy company – some of the same allegations now being probed by the House GOP.

    That led Democrats Thursday to push for testimony from Rudy Giuliani, who as Trump’s personal lawyer sought to dig up dirt on Biden in Ukraine in 2019.

    Twice, the Democrats forced the Oversight Committee to vote on Democratic motions to subpoena Giuliani, votes that served as stunts to try to hammer home their argument that Giuliani tried and failed to corroborate the same allegations at the heart of the Biden impeachment inquiry.

    “I ask the question: Where in the world is Rudy Giuliani?” said Rep. Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, one of the Democrats who forced the procedural vote. “That’s how we got here, ladies and gentlemen. And this committee is afraid to bring him before us and put him on the record. Shame! And the question was raised. What does this have to do with it? It has everything to do with it.”

    In addition to Giuliani, Raskin sought testimony from Lev Parnas, an associate of Giuliani’s who was indicted in 2019. Parnas subsequently cooperated with the Democratic impeachment inquiry, including providing a statement from a top official at Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company, stating, “No one from Burisma had any contacts with VP Biden or people working for him.”

    Several Democrats also raised Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who worked in the White House, receiving $2 billion from Saudi Arabia through a company he formed after leaving the White House.

    The Democrats charged that Kushner’s actions were far worse than Hunter Biden’s, because Kushner worked in government, while Biden’s son did not.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    Source link

  • Supreme Court returns for first private meeting of the term amid even more controversy | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court returns for first private meeting of the term amid even more controversy | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court returns to Washington to face a new term and the fresh reality that critics increasingly view the court as a political body.

    In the wake of a series of controversial decisions made possible by former President Donald Trump’s three nominees, including the seismic reversal of Roe v. Wade, the justices find themselves catapulted into the very center of the political discourse.

    Their opinions feature prominently on the campaign trail, approval ratings have plummeted to new lows and Democrats in Congress are vowing to regulate the third branch in the midst of allegations justices are skirting ethics rules and attacks on the very legitimacy of the court.

    So far, they have struggled to respond. At public appearances they grasp at the promise of judicial independence while sending mixed signals about changes that might be afoot.

    Tuesday, the justices will meet in person for their first closed-door conference of the term.

    Chief Justice John Roberts is at the center of it all.

    How he navigates this term will shape the trajectory of his tenure going forward. Some say he’ll remain on the sidelines, out of the fray. Others say he cannot afford to do so.

    Earlier this year, Roberts declined an invitation to appear before the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss Supreme Court ethics, citing separation of powers concerns. In May, speaking before an audience in Washington, Roberts said he wanted to assure the public that the court is committed to adhering to the “highest standards of conduct.”

    It was one line in one speech.

    But at the end of June, as controversy continued amid a raft of high-profile decisions that largely broke along ideological lines, Roberts made an unusual choice. In a 6-3 opinion striking down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, the chief strayed from the case at hand.

    He said that it had become a “disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of government.”

    He appeared to be responding to the dissent penned by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “In every respect, the Court today exceeds its proper limited role in our Nation’s governance,” Kagan began.

    Noting her disagreement, Roberts took the occasion to write, “we do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement.” He added: “Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country,” he wrote.

    It was unclear if the line was directed at his dissenting colleagues or critics outside of court or both, but it was an unusual digression from a justice who, by definition, lacks an obvious pulpit to defend his branch of government.

    The way forward for Roberts is not obvious.

    Even if he did believe a formal ethics code is necessary, it’s unclear whether he would need a unanimous vote to move forward. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito might, for instance, balk at such a move arguing that it would never satisfy critics whose true goal is to damage the institution.

    Some believe Roberts ultimately will steer clear of the controversy.

    “I don’t see him moving in any direction to encourage further disclosure reforms, and I don’t see Congress as being able to get sufficient traction,” Cate Stetson, a lawyer at Hogan Lovells, said at the Cato Institute earlier this month.

    But if the court does nothing, pressure will continue.

    Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, a Democrat, traveled to the Supreme Court on September 12 as an invited guest to the annual meeting of the Judicial Conference – the policymaking body for the federal courts.

    Sitting next to the chief justice on Roberts’ home turf, Durbin lobbied him to adopt an enforceable code of conduct directed specifically at the justices, according to a source.

    Roberts and others have continuously stressed how difficult it would be to adopt such a code, particularly when it comes to recusal issues.

    In April, all nine justices released a new statement hoping to provide “clarity” to the public about their ethics procedures, noting that they consult a “wide variety of authorities” when addressing specific ethics issues. They noted that while the Judicial Conference has a code of conduct followed by lower court judges, the conference “does not supervise the Supreme Court.”

    The statement outlined complications that distinguish the Supreme Court from the lower courts.

    At the lower court level, for instance, federal judges can substitute for each other if one judge recuses from a case. That’s not true at the high court where only members can hear a dispute.

    The statement did little to appease critics who say the justices can no longer continue to voluntarily follow rules that govern lower court judges. They must, critics say, have a code of conduct that binds them directly.

    Response from the bench

    Some conservatives believe there is no impending judicial crisis. Instead, they say, critics of the court are manufacturing a controversy to delegitimize the institution and staunch the flow of conservative opinions.

    Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, who is also a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, tweeted recently that the problem is not corruption.

    “The problem is the coordinated campaign by dark money activists, radical politicians, and a willing media to imply there is corruption, undermining the Court’s integrity and selectively smearing the justices they disagree with,” she wrote.

    Alito, who wrote the opinion overturning Roe, has taken a radically different approach than the chief justice.

    In an interview in July that appeared on The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, Alito said forthrightly that Congress should stay out of the Supreme Court’s business.

    “I know this is controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” he said. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period.”

    Alito said that he marveled “at all the nonsense that has been written about me in the last year” and noted that in the face of a political onslaught he was rejecting the notion that judges and justices “should be mute” and leave it to others to defend them.

    “I’ve said to myself, nobody else is going to do this, so I have to defend myself,” he wrote.

    A month earlier he sought to preempt a ProPublica report that had not yet been published concerning allegations that he should have disclosed luxury travel from 2008.

    Over the summer, other justices were asked about ethics and the court’s legitimacy by friendly questioners at universities and judicial conferences – although they never addressed specifics.

    Unlike Alito, Justice Elena Kagan suggested in August that here was some daylight on the question of whether Congress has a role to regulate the Supreme Court. Last week, she told an audience in Indiana that she thought it would be a “good” idea if the court were to adapt the ethics code used by lower court justices to fit the Supreme Court.

    For her part, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that criticism of the court is nothing new. At an appearance before a judicial conference in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, she said that “critiques of the court” are part of its history. Public criticism “comes with the job” she said.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh had a different message in Ohio saying he was “hopeful” that there would be some “concrete steps” taken soon to address the ethics issue.

    But his sentiment may have been aspirational.

    As the justices grapple with how to respond, they are hampered by an additional factor.

    Change at the high court comes slowly. The court’s unofficial mascot – the tortoise – can be found at the bottom of bronze lampposts on the building grounds. The tortoises are meant to symbolize the slow and steady pace of justice.

    Almost nothing at the high court comes quickly, and the institution is not new to controversy. The justices may decide to ride out the storm.

    Source link

  • 3M agrees to pay almost $10 million to settle apparent Iran sanctions violations | CNN Business

    3M agrees to pay almost $10 million to settle apparent Iran sanctions violations | CNN Business



    CNN
     — 

    3M has agreed to pay almost $10 million to settle apparent violations of Iranian sanctions, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control said last week.

    The agency said 3M had 54 apparent violations of OFAC sanctions on Iran. It said between 2016 and 2018, a 3M subsidiary in Switzerland allegedly knowingly sold reflective license plate sheeting through a German reseller to Bonyad Taavon Naja, an entity which is under Iranian law enforcement control.

    It’s the latest of a stream of high-publicity and high-dollar settlements that 3M — which makes Post-It notes, Scotch Tape, N95 masks and other industrial products — has made this year.

    3M has not replied to a request for comment regarding last week’s settlement announcement.

    One US person employed by 3M Gulf, a subsidiary in Dubai, was “closely involved” in the sale, OFAC said.

    The alleged sales occurred after an outside due diligence report, which flagged connections to Iran’s Law Enforcement Forces.

    OFAC notes Iranian law enforcement stands accused of human rights violations both in Iran and Syria.

    The Switzerland subsidiary, known as 3M East, sent 43 shipments to the German reseller even though it knew the products would be resold to the Iranian entity, according to the OFAC.

    OFAC said senior managers at 3M Gulf “willfully violated” sanctions laws and that other employees were “reckless in their handling” of the sales.

    “These employees had reason to know that these sales would violate U.S. sanctions, but ignored ample evidence that would have alerted them to this fact,” OFAC wrote.

    3M voluntarily self-disclosed the apparent violations after discovering the sale hadn’t been authorized, according to OFAC. It said it fired or reprimanded “culpable” employees involved, hired new trade compliance counsel, revamped sanctions trainings and stopped doing business with the German reseller.

    In June, 3M agreed to pay up to $10.3 billion over 13 years to fund public water suppliers in the United States that have detected toxic “forever chemicals” in drinking water.

    3M has faced thousands of lawsuits through the last two decades over its manufacturing of products containing polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which have been found in hundreds of household products.

    3M said that the multi-billion-dollar settlement over PFAS is not an admission of liability.

    A few months later, in August, the company agreed to pay $6 billion to resolve roughly 300,000 lawsuits alleging that the manufacturing company supplied faulty combat earplugs to the military that resulted in significant injuries, such as hearing loss.

    3M also said its earplug agreement was not an admission of liability.

    Source link

  • White House strategy on government funding meets serious test this week | CNN Politics

    White House strategy on government funding meets serious test this week | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden and his top aides at the White House plan to hammer away at a blunt message as the US government inches closer to a shutdown this week: A handful of extremist Republicans are entirely to blame for the havoc that would be unleashed across the country.

    For Biden, there’s a lot riding on that message getting through to Americans.

    Biden’s advisers have been assessing for weeks how involved to get in lawmakers’ deliberations to fund the government ahead of the end-of-month deadline, and ultimately decided to take a hands-off approach. The expectation: Should the Republican-led House struggle to reach consensus, they would ultimately shoulder the blame for any disruption.

    “Watch the GOP struggle and force them to govern or be blamed for shutdown,” a Biden administration official said, summing up the strategy.

    The White House is planning to dispatch a number of Cabinet officials this week to help lay out the broad range of ramifications if the government were to shutdown – everything from flight delays to childcare centers shutting down.

    Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will appear at Monday’s White House news briefing to discuss how a government shutdown could hit everything from food programs to loans for farmers, a White House official said.

    “This would stop us in our tracks,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said on CNN on Sunday. “A shutdown that would mean service members wouldn’t get paid, coming back to transportation to air traffic controllers who would be working in the towers. They wouldn’t get paid.”

    Over the weekend, White House officials continued to monitor for any signs of movement on Capitol Hill to extend funding for the federal government ahead of the deadline. How to handle a possible shutdown was a key agenda item when White House chief of staff Jeff Zients huddled with senior advisers in the West Wing on Saturday, according to people familiar. But heading into a new work week, Republican members had not put anything realistic on the table, officials said, leaving the White House bracing for what is to come.

    In the days ahead, the president and his allies will repeatedly point to “who’s responsible” for the mess that could unfold, one senior administration official said simply.

    The White House took a similar approach this spring during the debt ceiling negotiations, but not without a seeming hit to Biden. In a CNN poll conducted mid-May, 59% of respondents said the president was not acting responsibly as talks stalled and the government careened toward default. The difference then: Republicans had coalesced around a specific position, passing a bill in the House that reflected their priorities and catching the White House off guard. Negotiations escalated in the weeks that followed, resulting in a deal that set broad guardrails around federal spending for the 2024 fiscal year.

    That deal was supposed to usher in months of in-depth appropriations work that would yield a full-year spending package and avert a government shutdown. Now, the White House says Republicans dropped the ball.

    Speaking over the weekend at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Phoenix Awards Dinner, Biden said it was “small group of extreme Republicans” that was refusing to “live up to the deal” that he had struck months ago with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

    “The president did his job,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said when asked whether the White House would do anything to stave off a shutdown. “This is not something we can fix. The best plan is for House Republicans to stop their partisan political play and not do this to hurt Americans across the country. That’s the plan.”

    Source link