ReportWire

Tag: us federal government

  • Former Trump White House counsel and his deputy testify to Jan. 6 criminal grand jury | CNN Politics

    Former Trump White House counsel and his deputy testify to Jan. 6 criminal grand jury | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone and deputy counsel Patrick Philbin testified to a federal grand jury for several hours in Washington, DC, on Friday, indicating the Justice Department had compelled the men to answer more questions in the January 6, 2021, criminal investigation despite challenges from Donald Trump’s legal team.

    The January 6 grand jury activity is the latest indication the investigation – now led by special counsel Jack Smith – has pushed in recent months to unearth new details about direct conversations with the former president and advice given to him after the election.

    Cipollone was first seen entering the grand jury area with his attorney, Michael Purpura, before 9 a.m., and he was there for more than five hours. Purpura has not responded to requests for comment. The grand jury proceedings themselves are confidential.

    Philbin, whom Purpura also represents, headed into the grand jury area just before the lunch hour on Friday, staying until about 4 p.m.

    Thomas Windom and Mary Dohrmann, prosecutors in the January 6 investigation who are now to be led by Smith, were also seen walking in with Cipollone.

    The investigators are looking at efforts to obstruct the transfer of power at the end of Trump’s presidency and have obtained testimony from several administration advisers closest to the former president after the election and as the Capitol was attacked by his supporters.

    CNN previously reported that Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the DC District Court, who oversees the federal grand juries in Washington, ordered Cipollone and Philbin to provide additional grand jury testimony this month, following up on their testimony in the fall. The judge has repeatedly rejected Trump’s privilege claims in the Justice Department’s criminal investigation of efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to people briefed on the matter.

    Philbin and Cipollone were both key witnesses to Trump’s actions in the last days of his presidency. Cipollone repeatedly pushed back on efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and according to a Senate Judiciary Committee report, he and Philbin opposed a proposal to replace the attorney general with someone willing to look into false claims of election fraud.

    Previously, the Justice Department compelled top advisers from Vice President Mike Pence’s office to testify to the grand jury. They had sought to protect Pence in January 2021 from Trump’s pressure campaign to overturn the election.

    Earlier this week, Trump White House official Stephen Miller, who worked with Trump on his speech at the Ellipse, had his own day before the grand jury.

    On Thursday, another leg of Smith’s special counsel investigation – into the handling of documents at Mar-a-Lago after the presidency – was active in the courthouse. At least one Mar-a-Lago prosecutor was working in the secret grand jury proceedings, as three aides to Trump, Dan Scavino, William Russell and Beau Harrison, each appeared, according to sources familiar with them. Their attorney declined to comment.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Israeli journalists experience chilly reception at Qatar World Cup | CNN

    Israeli journalists experience chilly reception at Qatar World Cup | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: A version of this story first appeared in CNN’s Meanwhile in the Middle East newsletter, a three-times-a-week look inside the region’s biggest stories. Sign up here.


    Jerusalem and Doha
    CNN
     — 

    When special direct flights were announced from Tel Aviv to Doha for the FIFA World Cup, the scene at Ben Gurion airport was festive – the company chartering the flight brought out a cake festooned with Qatari and Israeli flags.

    But Israeli reporters sent to cover the tournament say they’re experiencing a less than welcoming atmosphere.

    Moav Vardi, chief international correspondent for the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation “KAN,” told CNN he was expecting some hostility from Palestinian and Arab fans – but not the level he has experienced in Qatar.

    Most Arab fans he tries to interview, Vardi says, will just turn away when they discover he is Israeli even if they had been having a friendly conversation beforehand. But a small and vocal minority is engaging in “violent verbal assaults,” Vardi said.

    You are not welcome here, go away, there is only Palestine, there is no such thing as Israel, Israel does not exist,” Vardi said he’s told almost every day by football fans in Qatar.

    Vardi said the impression he has gotten is that the “hatred and resentment” is not just about the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Rather “it’s about the very existence of Israel.”

    While he says he hasn’t felt physically threatened, KAN has removed its logo from his microphone, after he was recognized from encounters in Doha that had gone viral on social media.

    Former Israeli football star, and now a commentator Eil Ohana posted a video showing a Qatari police officer driving him in a golf cart. After initially getting a shocked reaction from telling the policeman he is Israeli, he says instead that he was joking and that he is actually from Portugal. The police officer says he would have stopped the cart and kicked him off if the commentator was Israeli. When the commentator asked the driver why, he replied, “I’m Palestinian” and goes on to explain that Arabs cannot fly to Israel.

    Videos have gone viral in Israel and the Arab world showing football fans yelling at Israeli reporters, refusing to speak to them because of where they are from. Other videos show people hoisting Palestinian flags in the background of Israeli reporters’ live shots, taunting the reporters.

    While country flags are generally allowed at matches, clothing or banners with political statements – like LGBTQ rights or those supporting Iranian protesters – have at times led to fans being kicked out of stadiums. But some Arab attendees say the Palestinian cause, which Qatar officially supports, seems to be an exception – in one early match fans held up a giant Palestinian flag with the message “Free Palestine.”

    According to sources briefed on the matter, 8,000 Palestinians and 3,800 Israelis applied for World Cup tickets, although thousands more may have entered Qatar on secondary passports.

    Israel and Qatar have no diplomatic relations – but under the FIFA rules, Israelis must be allowed to attend the tournament and a small, temporary Israeli consular team is in Doha to assist citizens, who have been advised by the Israeli foreign ministry to keep a low profile.

    Omar Barakat, the Palestinian national football team coach, told Reuters in Doha that he was encouraged to take Palestinian flags into matches. He said that he was only allowed by security to take an oversized flag into a stadium on revealing it to be a Palestinian flag. “It’s a political statement, and we’re proud of it,” he said.

    On Wednesday, a football fan wearing a Tunisia shirt invaded the pitch with a Palestinian flag during a match between France and Tunisia. When he was apprehended by security personnel, crowds in the stand could be heard chanting “Palestine! Palestine!”

    For Farah Hamam, a Palestinian-Jordanian football fan, some Arab fans’ refusal to engage with Israeli journalists reflects the Arab world’s frustration with “the continued atrocities taking place” against the Palestinian people. That was the “real sentiment” toward Israel “despite normalization efforts of Arab governments,” she told CNN.

    “For perhaps the first time in history, Arabs around the world are unapologetically showing their lack of patience with Israel,” she said.

    Israel in recent years normalized relations with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco, a move that was seen as a major diplomatic feat for the nation and a way out of its regional isolation.

    Talal Hizami, a Saudi football fan at the World Cup, linked Arab attitudes toward Israelis in Doha to a pushback against Israel’s recognition by those states. “It’s a rejection of the normalization of Israel in the Middle East…. many Arab citizens see this as a betrayal,” he told CNN.

    He said Israeli journalists may have mistakenly assumed that the normalization trend toward Israel in the Arab world “is a reflection of what the people of those nations feel towards them when in reality, many are extremely angered by it.”

    Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Supreme Committee for Delivery & Legacy (SC), the tournament organizers, didn’t respond to CNN’s requests for comment on the treatment of Israeli reporters or the display of political symbols at the World Cup.

    Reacting to how he says he was treated by Arabs in Doha, Raz Shechnick, a reporter for the Israeli Yediot Ahronoth newspaper, posted a long Twitter thread in Hebrew about his experience, saying “I was always a centrist, liberal and open [with] a will to make peace above all. I always thought the problem was governments, the rulers, ours too. But, in Qatar I came to realize how hatred is present with people on the street. How much they want to wipe us off the face of the earth. To what extent everything related to Israel arouses intense hatred in them.”

    Roy Jankelowitz, a correspondent for the IsraelSport website, said he has not had as many problems in Doha but that he does not “go around walking with a microphone in Hebrew.”

    “As an Israeli, I understand that there may be a problem over here for people to accept that Israelis are here because of the fact that they do not know much about Israel. All they see is what the media, the local Arab media reports to them about Israel,” he told CNN. “All they see is, when they see something in Hebrew they think it is something bad.”

    Jankelowitz said he’s taken the Israeli Foreign Ministry advice to all Israeli attendees to keep a low profile and does not necessarily tell fans he is from Israel unless he feels it is safe to do so.

    “You have to understand that you’re in an Arab country and not everybody likes you,” he said.

    But not all Arabs in Doha agree that the football tournament is an appropriate place to show support for Palestinians. Munser Al Shibly a fan from Libya at the World Cup, told CNN it was “nice” to see fans support Palestinians but added that football should be “separate from politics… even if it’s the Palestinian cause.”

    Vardi, the Israeli KAN reporter, said despite some hostility, he’s also had some fascinating interactions – like after being recognized while watching a match and being told to “go away” by one fan, a different fan from Saudi Arabia sitting near him turned and said, “Oh Israel? Why don’t you get rid of Iran for us please.”

    With additional reporting by Nadeen Ebrahim, Celine Alkhaldi, Zeena Saifi and Mariam Dirar Alqasem.

    Iranian security forces kill anti-government protester celebrating World Cup defeat, rights group says

    A man is reported to have been killed by security forces in northern Iran during public celebrations by anti-government protesters following the national football team’s defeat against the United States on Tuesday.

    • Background: Several videos were posted on social media Tuesday night showing people in cities across Iran, including in the capital Tehran, celebrating inside their homes and residential buildings after the US defeated Iran 1-0 in the World Cup. Demonstrations have rocked Iran for more than two months, sparking a deadly clampdown by authorities.
    • Why it matters: Football has become the latest arena for pro- and anti-regime Iranians to express their views. A source told CNN earlier that the families of Iran’s team had been threatened with imprisonment and torture if players failed to “behave” after they refrained from singing the country’s national anthem in an earlier game. Some Iranian activists had accused the players of whitewashing the government’s crimes.

    US tells Turkey it opposes new military operation in Syria

    United States Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told his Turkish counterpart Wednesday that his country strongly opposes a new military operation in Syria and that he was concerned about Turkish airstrikes that threatened US personnel in the region.

    • Background: On Tuesday, the Pentagon said the US has reduced the number of patrols with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) against ISIS in Syria as the SDF has said an invasion by Turkey seems “imminent.” It said the US has not redeployed forces in the region and has “no diminished capability” in the region.
    • Why it matters: Turkey has been warning for months about a potential incursion into Syria targeting Kurdish groups it opposes there. Both Russia and the US have stakes in the country. Last week, a Turkish airstrike against a base in northern Syria used by the US-led coalition to defeat ISIS threatened the safety of US personnel working in the area. The US has approximately 900 troops in Syria.

    ISIS acknowledges the death of its leader, announces his successor

    ISIS affiliate al-Furqan media published an audio message by the jihadist group’s spokesman announcing the death of its leader, who was appointed in March. It didn’t make clear who killed the group commander or where. ISIS announced his successor, who goes by the name Abu al-Husain al-Husaini al-Quraishi. Little is known about him, but the group described him as an “old fighter” without providing further details. Syria’s army took credit for his killing, Reuters cited state media as saying.

    • Background: The deceased leader was appointed by ISIS in March 2022 after US President Joe Biden announced the death of Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi in a military operation in the northwest of Syria.
    • Why it matters: Analysts have said that ISIS is in disarray. If the Syrian regime’s claims are true, the killing would a rare occasion where a top ISIS leader has been killed in a non-US-led operation.

    Qatar’s Energy Minister Saad Al Kaabi told CNN’s Becky Anderson on Wednesday the country will not let politics affect business after it signed a deal to provide Germany with 2 million tons of LNG annually, starting in 2026.

    This comes amid heightened tensions with Germany, which ramped up its criticism of Qatar ahead of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, questioning its human rights record and later opposing the Gulf country’s ban on the rainbow-colored armband.

    Watch the interview here:

    After Tunisia beat France in a stunning 1-0 victory on Wednesday, Morocco on Thursday beat Canada 2-1, becoming the only Arab nation to reach the knockout rounds. Saudi Arabia, which galvanized Arab audiences with its early win against Argentina, was knocked out of the tournament after losing against Mexico on Wednesday.

    • Canadian pop star Justin Bieber launched clean water company Generosity at Qatar’s World Cup, to provide premium alkaline water in refillable fountains across the globe.
    • The pitch invader who waved a rainbow flag on the field during Portugal’s World Cup match with Uruguay on Monday said FIFA president Gianni Infantino came to the Qatari police station to free him in order to “avoid more controversy.”
    • Thursday’s Group E FIFA World Cup match between Costa Rica and Germany saw an all-women refereeing team for the first time in men’s World Cup history. Stephanie Frappart, from France, led the refereeing team, making her the first woman to referee a men’s World Cup match.

    .

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Black Creeks expelled from tribe finally get their day in court, 43 years later | CNN

    Black Creeks expelled from tribe finally get their day in court, 43 years later | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s Race Deconstructed newsletter. To get it in your inbox every week, sign up for free here.

    Thursday could mark a turning point in Native American history. A hearing is scheduled about Black claims to Native citizenship. More specifically, the hearing will address the long-running demands of the descendants of Black people who were enslaved by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation that they be granted tribal citizenship and corresponding rights.

    Following the Civil War, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation was required to accept as citizens the people of African descent it had once enslaved. But a 1979 change to the tribe’s constitution defined citizenship “by blood.” As a result, Black Creeks and their descendants, known as Freedmen, were effectively expelled.

    Damario Solomon-Simmons, a civil rights attorney representing the two plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said he feels confident that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court will decide in his favor.

    A descendant of Black Creeks, Solomon-Simmons has been involved in the citizenship battle for years. In 2018, he filed a federal lawsuit, but it was dismissed. (His grandmother was a plaintiff, but she died in 2019.)

    Solomon-Simmons filed a petition in March 2020, and says that the tribe’s 1979 decision was “completely racist” and “erroneous.”

    “It’s 100 percent anti-Black discrimination,” he told CNN. “They’re telling you that if you’re Black and/or (had) enslaved (ancestors), you can’t be a member of our nation.”

    Solomon-Simmons said the constitution not only strips Black Creeks of their citizenship – it also prevents them from securing the benefits given to tribal members: health care, education, housing, scholarships, cash assistance and more.

    Officials from the Muscogee (Creek) Nation insist the tribe’s citizenship requirements have nothing to do with race.

    Spokesman Jason Salsman told CNN in an email that the nation’s citizenship is diverse, and includes Black Americans, Spanish people, Mexicans and Asians.

    But he noted that the tribe has a “traumatic history” with people who aren’t Creek by blood and that this is a “challenging issue” for many citizens.

    “I can’t speak for the leaders of 43 years ago when this decision took place,” Salsman said. “But it should hardly be surprising that a nation like ours that has endured attempts at extermination, removal and other unjust federal policies enforced by outsiders would seek a constitution that requires Creek Indian ancestry and blood lineage among its citizens and leaders.”

    He added, “The matter before the Court is not a question of race but rather to determine whether our government is obligated by treaty to enroll individuals as citizens who are not Creek Indians.”

    David Hill, the principal chief of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, underscored in an April 2021 letter the knottiness of this history, and the significance of confronting it.

    “The question of the enrollment status of the descendants of Creek Freedmen is an extremely complex one,” he wrote, “born in an era when African Americans and Native Americans alike faced traumatic injustices at the hands of the US government. … As good leaders, it is important for us to listen, acknowledge and openly engage with our communities and our citizens. When these issues arise, they are opportunities that allow us to reconsider if our policies are still reflective of who we are as a Nation.”

    Black Creeks have reason to be hopeful about their cause, which isn’t unique. Just last year, the Cherokee Nation jettisoned from its constitution language that defined citizenship purely by blood.

    “The Cherokee Nation’s actions have brought this longstanding issue to a close and have importantly fulfilled their obligations to the Cherokee Freedmen,” Deb Haaland, the first Native American Cabinet secretary, said in a May 2021 statement. “We encourage other Tribes to take similar steps to meet their moral and legal obligations to the Freedmen.”

    Here’s a closer look at the citizenship struggles dividing the Muscogee (Creek) Nation:

    To understand some of the challenges beleaguering Black Creeks’ in our present day, let’s rewind to the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

    During this period, the US government actively sought to “civilize” independent, self-governing tribal nations – Muscogee (Creek), Chickasaw, Choctaw, Seminole and Cherokee – by forcing on them the privatization of land and the use of enslaved people for labor.

    Many of these nations, especially the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, didn’t practice slavery in the way people tend to picture the institution.

    “It wasn’t chattel slavery, where people would lose their humanity and become property,” Caleb Gayle, a professor of practice at Northeastern University and the author of the 2022 book, “We Refuse to Forget: A True Story of Black Creeks, American Identity and Power,” told CNN. “It was, instead, a practice called kinship slavery. People were still peers. Slave identity wasn’t passed down from generation to generation. People broke bread and were seen as equals.”

    He added that a certain level of nuance is necessary when discussing slavery within the context of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

    “There’s been interaction between Black people and Native American nations for a very long time,” Gayle said. “That connection was further fortified through the project of civilization that the US government enforced again and again.”

    In 1866, in the aftermath of the Civil War, peace treaties granted not only emancipation but also tribal citizenship to Black people who had been enslaved by Native American nations.

    With the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887, the US government sought to identify who would be on which citizenship roll. Some ended up on the “by blood” roll; others, on the Freedmen roll.

    In 1979, when the Muscogee (Creek) Nation altered its constitution, those on the Freedmen roll were no longer able to keep the citizenship status they’d had for decades.

    “Even if your ancestors had never been slaves, even if they’d been adopted into the nation, even if they never had the stain of slavery on them, if you were on the Freedmen roll – often because your ancestors looked a certain way – the constitutional change kind of nullified your claim to the citizenship you once had,” Gayle said.

    Rhonda Grayson is intimately familiar with this history and its effects. She’s one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and said that her ancestors were enslaved by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

    She’s among the hundreds of Black Creek descendants who’ve unsuccessfully applied for citizenship since 1979. She applied in 2019, she recalled, but was denied; her appeal also was denied.

    Grayson explained that she wants the Muscogee (Creek) Nation to issue an apology to Black Creeks for discarding them.

    “My motivation is redemption for my ancestors. They suffered just like any other Native American. They worked and built the Creek Nation to what it is today,” she said. “We’re fighting for our tribal rights. We’re entitled to them.”

    The disputes ricocheting throughout the Muscogee (Creek) Nation offer us an opportunity to reconfigure the way we think about identity.

    In fact, we may already be starting to see this change.

    In February 2021, the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court ruled that the nation had to remove “by blood” from its constitution. The decision meant that the descendants of Black people once enslaved by the Cherokee Nation would have the right to tribal citizenship.

    “Freedmen rights are inherent,” as Cherokee Nation Supreme Court Justice Shawna S. Baker wrote in the opinion. “They extend to descendants of Freedmen as a birthright springing from their ancestors’ oppression and displacement as people of color recorded and memorialized in Article 9 of the 1866 Treaty.”

    For many, especially Black Creeks, this development extends hope that they might achieve a similar outcome.

    Crucially, as citizenship conversations continue, we must maintain precision and sensitivity, Gayle urged.

    “It’s important to keep the focus squarely on the culprit that brought us to this point today. And that’s the US government. Its subtle and overt expansion of White supremacy is to blame here. These are two incredibly aggrieved, hyper-marginalized groups,” he said.

    In this light, Gayle added, “it’s impossible not to feel where the Muscogee (Creek) Nation is coming from when folks say, ‘We’re tired of being told who we are and being forced to modify and to accommodate.’ And it’s impossible not to feel where Black Creeks are coming from when they say, ‘Yes, we understand that – but we have a shared history that’s so potent and powerful as well.’”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The fine print of the Respect for Marriage Act | CNN Politics

    The fine print of the Respect for Marriage Act | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

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



    CNN
     — 

    Let’s start with the positive: Republicans and Democrats are coming together to protect same-sex marriage from the Supreme Court. The Respect for Marriage Act, which safeguards the right to same-sex marriage nationwide, passed the House with bipartisan support earlier this week and now awaits a Senate vote.

    The Respect for Marriage Act codifies marriages and came about amid worries among Democrats that the same conservative majority on the Supreme Court that took away the right to abortion will target same-sex marriage in the future.

    The version that overcame a filibuster in the Senate passed the Senate Tuesday. A dozen Republican senators from across the country voted with Democrats before Thanksgiving to limit debate and move toward a final vote.

    RELATED: Meet the 12 Republicans who voted to consider the Respect for Marriage Act

    It next goes to the House for approval before President Joe Biden can sign it into law.

    But there is a fair amount of fine print.

    First, the bill does not require all states to allow same-sex marriage, even though that is the current reality under the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Rather, if the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell and previous state prohibitions on same-sex marriage came back into effect, the Respect for Marriage Act would require states and the federal government to respect marriages conducted in places where it is legal.

    There are religious exceptions. Republican supporters have emphasized the elements in this Senate version that protect nonprofit and religious organizations from having to provide support for same-sex marriages.

    “I will be supporting the substitute amendment because it will ensure our religious freedoms are upheld and protected, one of the bedrocks of our democracy,” said West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito in a statement after helping break the filibuster.

    It took months of behind-the-scenes effort to bring 10-plus Republicans on board.

    This is all academic right now. The bill is only being passed in case the now-solidly conservative Supreme Court, which has taken delight in upending precedent, were to revisit the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that created a national right to marriage for same-sex couples.

    Two of the justices who voted in favor of that ruling have been replaced by Republican-appointed conservatives, which means that if the case were heard today, there’s a real likelihood it would be decided differently.

    While Justice Samuel Alito seemed to want to wall off the abortion rights precedent upended by the Supreme Court earlier this year, CNN’s Ariane de Vogue has written about how the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could affect issues like marriage. Read her story.

    Here’s a brief history of marriage equality playing a role in prior election years:

    Today, it’s Republicans and Democrats, along with a Democratic president, working together to protect same-sex marriage from a government institution.

    During that time, public support for same-sex marriage grew from about a quarter of the public in the year the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted to 71% in Gallup polling this year.

    The issue has played a role in multiple US elections, including, arguably, the one that just took place.

    Here’s a brief history of marriage equality playing a role in prior election years:

    In 1996, Republican majorities in the House and Senate sensed a political opening after then-President Bill Clinton failed to allow gay people to openly serve in the military.

    They were also trying to get ahead of a Hawaii court decision that could have legalized same-sex marriage in that state. Fearing every state might have to recognize same-sex unions, Republicans pushed the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.

    It declared marriage as between one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize marriages. It also withheld federal benefits from married same-sex couples. In 2013, a part of DOMA was found to be unconstitutional.

    DOMA had broad approval. Democrats like then-Sen. Joe Biden voted for the bill. Current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and many other Democrats whose names you’d recognize, were among the 342 who voted for the bill in the House.

    Current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was among the 67 members to vote “no,” along with Rep. Steve Gunderson, who at the time was the House’s only openly gay Republican.

    In 2004, placing anti-gay-marriage amendments on ballots in key states like Ohio was smart politics. It helped George W. Bush win reelection to the White House and the GOP gain seats in the US Senate.

    Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The Democratic candidate, John Kerry, also opposed same-sex marriage at the time.

    In 2008, even as more in his party began to publicly support marriage equality, Obama continued his opposition.

    He has more recently said and written that he always personally supported same-sex marriage rights. His campaign aide David Axelrod has written that Obama made a calculated decision to oppose gay marriage.

    “He grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union,’” Axelrod wrote in a memoir.

    In 2012, following the lead of then-Vice President Biden, Obama officially evolved on the issue and said he now supported marriage equality. It was a big moment.

    A few years later, in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide.

    “I’m fine with it,” Trump said in 2016 during an interview with “60 Minutes.”

    He’d go on to brag about being a champion for gay rights, although many LGBTQ activists would disagree.

    The politicians of the ’90s have largely evolved with the country.

    But one of the Supreme Court’s relics from the ’90s, Justice Clarence Thomas, recently questioned the 2015 marriage decision he opposed. As a result, Republicans and Democrats are coming together again, in less than a generation, to undo what they did in 1996, and try to guarantee marriage as a right for all Americans.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court hears Texas’ challenge to Biden immigration and deportation policies | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court hears Texas’ challenge to Biden immigration and deportation policies | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider the Biden administration’s discretion on removing non-citizens in a challenge brought by two Republican state attorneys general who say the Department of Homeland Security is skirting federal immigration law.

    The case, brought by Texas and Louisiana, is the latest salvo from conservative states who have all but declared war on the Biden administration on immigration and have gone as far as busing undocumented immigrants to Democrat-led states in an effort to raise alarm about the issue.

    At the heart of the dispute is a September 2021 memo from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that laid out priorities for the arrest, detention and deportation of certain non-citizens, reversing efforts by former President Donald Trump to increase deportations.

    In court papers, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stressed that Congress has never provided the funds to detain everyone, prompting administrations to consider how to prioritize limited funds.

    “Especially given perennial constraints on detention capacity, the Executive retains authority to focus its limited resources on those non-citizens who are higher priorities for apprehension,” she wrote.

    The guidelines call for an assessment of the “totality of the facts and circumstances” instead of the development of a bright-line rule. The government lists aggravating factors weighing in favor of an enforcement action including the gravity of the offense and the use of a firearm, but it also lists mitigating factors that include the age of the immigrant.

    Lawyers for Texas and Louisiana argued that the government lacked the authority to issue the memo because it conflicts with federal law. They point to immigration law that holds that some immigrants “shall” be taken into custody or removed.

    “When Congress required the Executive to act, the Executive lacks the authority to disregard that instruction,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argued in court papers. He also charged that the guidelines violate the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs how an agency can issue regulations.

    A district court judge blocked the guidelines nationwide. “Using the words ‘discretion’ and ‘prioritization’ the Executive Branch claims the authority to suspend statutory mandates,” ruled Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee on the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. “The law does not sanction this approach.”

    A federal appeals court declined to issue a stay of the decision, prompting the Biden administration to ask the Supreme Court for emergency relief last July. A 5-4 court ruled against the administration, allowing the lower court’s decision to remain in effect while the legal challenge plays out.

    Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined her three liberal colleagues in dissent without providing any explanation for her vote.

    In his memo, Mayorkas stated that there are approximately 11 million undocumented or otherwise removable non-citizens in the country and that the United States does not have the ability to apprehend and seek to remove all of them. As such, the Department of Homeland Security sought to prioritize those that pose a threat to national security, public safety and border security.

    Prelogar noted that the lower court holding against the government “runs counter to longstanding practice spanning multiple administrations” and emphasized that the guidelines are not binding orders compelling action, but instead, are an attempt to utilize available resources while leaving ultimate discretion to the judgment of individual immigration officials.

    “The guidelines simply tell federal officials how to enforce federal law in a field that the Constitution commits to the federal government,” Prelogar wrote.

    As a threshold matter, she urged the justices to dismiss the challenge, arguing that the states don’t have the legal right – or standing – to bring the challenge because they can’t show the necessary direct injury. Prelogar said if the lawsuit were allowed to go forward, any state could sue the federal government about “virtually any policy.”

    In a separate dispute, Arizona, Montana and Ohio also sued the Biden administration. A district court judge issued a nationwide injunction blocking the guidelines, but the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals put that decision on hold.

    “Federal law gives the National Government considerable authority over immigration policy,” the court held. It also expressed skepticism about whether the guidance directly injured the states.

    Paxton argued to the Supreme Court that the states have the legal right to bring the lawsuit because they bear costs related to law enforcement activities as well as health care and education costs of the non-citizens.

    Critics also say that Texas is guilty of “judge shopping” the case at hand by filing it where it had a 100% chance of drawing a Trump-appointed district judge who has previously issued nationwide injunctions concerning other immigration policies.

    “So far, Texas has taken the lead in 29 different lawsuits against the Biden administration, on immigration,” said CNN analyst Steve Vladeck who is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. In a friend of the court brief filed opposing Texas, Vladeck noted that none of those cases had been filed where the Texas government is located in Austin.

    “This case is the latest battlefield in what has become an all-out war by red state attorneys general against virtually every Biden related policy,” Vladeck said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court counsel says Justice Samuel Alito didn’t violate ethics standards | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court counsel says Justice Samuel Alito didn’t violate ethics standards | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court legal counsel said there is no evidence that Justice Samuel Alito violated ethics standards, according to a letter on Monday in response to questions from congressional Democrats about allegations that Alito revealed the outcome of a 2014 decision before it was released.

    “There is nothing to suggest that Justice Alito’s actions violated ethics standards,” wrote Ethan Torrey, legal counsel for the Supreme Court. “Relevant rules balance preventing gifts that might undermine public confidence in the judiciary and allowing judges to maintain normal personal friendships.”

    Torrey pushed back on allegations from an evangelical minister, Rev. Rob Schenck, published in The New York Times earlier this month. The story alleged that there had been an earlier Supreme Court breach in a landmark religious liberty case years before last term’s leak of a draft of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

    “Justice Alito has said that neither he nor Mrs. Alito” told Gayle Wright, a guest at his home years ago, “about the decision in the Hobby Lobby case, or about the authorship of the opinion from the court,” Torrey wrote.

    Torrey also said Alito and his wife became acquainted with Wright and her now-deceased husband because of their support for the Supreme Court Historical Society, and “they had a casual and purely social relationship.”

    “The Justice never detected any effort on the part of the Wrights to obtain confidential information or to influence anything he did in either an official or private capacity,” Torrey wrote.

    Wright previously denied Schenk’s claims in an interview with CNN.

    The letter was in response to questions Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Henry Johnson posed to Torrey and Chief Justice John Roberts for answers last week after the Times story ran.

    The congressmen had asked Roberts to “assist our investigation” into the allegations and warned that the new allegations suggest “that the orchestrators of this judicial lobby campaign may have used their access to certain justices to secure confidential information about pending cases that only deepens our concerns about the lack of adequate ethical and legal guardrails at the court.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • These are the end-of-year political showdowns that will help decide America’s future | CNN Politics

    These are the end-of-year political showdowns that will help decide America’s future | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    America is heading for a year-end political collision that will set the stage for showdowns between the new Republican-led House and the Democrats who still wield power in the Senate and White House.

    A fraught coda to the political battles of 2022 will decide who holds the government purse strings and how far the US will go in funding Ukraine’s war with Russia. It will showcase extremism in the incoming GOP-run House and the size of the Democratic Senate majority. And the 2024 presidential campaign is grinding into gear with ex-President Donald Trump stirring controversy on multiple fronts and President Joe Biden pondering a reelection bid.

    In Congress, a lame-duck session will see standoffs that could risk a government shutdown and over the must-lift US government borrowing limit, with grave implications for the economy.

    Meanwhile, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy is scrambling to solidify support in his bid to become speaker in January, with a smaller-than-expected incoming majority giving his extreme pro-Trump colleagues extra power.

    And the House January 6 committee is poised to soon unveil its final report on Trump’s negligence and incitement leading up to the US Capitol insurrection. The findings, amid signs of acrimony inside the panel, could further color sentiment towards the ex-president as he seeks to build momentum after an underwhelming 2024 campaign launch – and as powerful donors, as well as prominent Republicans considering their own White House ambitions, are openly castigating Trump for hosting and then failing to disavow White nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. The special counsel probe into his hoarding of classified documents and 2020 election chicanery is also gathering pace.

    Trump is also one of the factors playing into the Georgia Senate runoff election on December 6 that could give Democrats slender breathing room in the chamber or extend the 50-50 split broken only by Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote that made Biden’s agenda so precarious for the last two years.

    These next few weeks will show the country has failed to fully process the trauma of the Trump presidency or to arrive at the sense of normality that Biden promised during the 2020 campaign – even as the two rivals maneuver ahead of a possible rematch in 2024. They will also stress the near impossibility of governing at a time when America is deeply split between two political poles since big questions are likely to get pushed down the road.

    Big issues not solved this December will be pitched into an even more volatile atmosphere by an aggressive GOP-controlled House primed to slam the White House with partisan investigations.

    There’s also the renewed threat of a freight rail strike that could again clog supply lines and fresh Democratic calls for more action on gun control after a tragic new spate of mass shootings. The Democrats have a massive agenda before relinquishing the House but have little political room or time to accomplish it.

    Still, Congress is expected to mark one milestone in the coming weeks. The Senate is expected to vote to codify rights to same-sex and interracial marriage after a procedural vote on the measure earlier in November demonstrated strong bipartisan support.

    Here is what to look out for in the coming weeks.

    Congress must pass a bill to fund the government by December 16 or risk a partial government shutdown. The administration has asked for $37.7 billion in aid for Ukraine, $10 billion for extended efforts to combat Covid-19 and an unspecified amount for disaster relief after hurricanes hit Florida and Puerto Rico.

    Democrats will remain in control of the House until the new Congress in 2023, but a major spending package will also still likely require agreement from 10 Republicans to beat a Senate filibuster. GOP senators are especially skeptical about the administration’s warnings that the US will suffer a relapse in its exit from the pandemic without billions more dollars in funding. And even getting a Democratic majority in the chamber to sign on could be a challenge since West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin could make another stand against another spurt of government spending, especially since he would face a tough race if he decides to run for reelection in 2024.

    There is likely sufficient support for new aid to Ukraine in the Senate, but funding President Volodymyr Zelensky’s war for democracy against Russia is set to become far less routine next year as pro-Trump House members, like Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, are vowing to halt aid needed for vital weapons and ammunition. They want the cash sent to reinforce the southern US border instead.

    The most serious showdown of the new Congress could come over raising the government’s borrowing limit that is due to be reached sometime next year. Failure to do so could trash faith in America’s willingness to pay its bills and send shockwaves through the US and global economy.

    McCarthy has already warned he will require spending concessions on key programs in return for allowing the government to borrow more money – a scenario that triggered several damaging fiscal showdowns during the Obama administration.

    To avoid a repeat, Democrats could use the waning days of their control of both chambers to raise the debt ceiling themselves, using a budgetary process known as reconciliation that could bypass a Senate filibuster. But the process is hugely complex, in terms of congressional choreography and time.

    Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said before Thanksgiving that the “best way to get it done, the way it’s been done the last two or three times is bipartisan.” But Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell didn’t express much interest in Schumer’s invitation sit down to sort out the issue, saying “I don’t think the debt limit issue is until sometime next year.”

    The House Republican leader has a big problem – finding the votes in the new GOP majority to fulfill his dream of becoming speaker.

    McCarthy staked out a series of hardline positions heading into the holiday in an apparent effort to appease pro-Trump lawmakers after several declared they won’t vote for him. The California lawmaker can afford to lose only a few GOP votes if he wants to be speaker.

    During a trip to the border last week, he warned Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to resign or face possible impeachment next year. And he said he’ll follow through on a threat to throw high-profile Democrats, such as Reps. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar, off of top committees next year.

    Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Schiff accused McCarthy of adopting extremist positions for his own naked political gain.

    “Kevin McCarthy has no ideology, has no core set of beliefs,” Schiff told CNN’s Dana Bash, saying the top House Republican will do “whatever he needs to do to get the votes of the QAnon caucus within his conference.”

    McCarthy’s struggle to confirm his speakership lies partly in the smaller-than-expected GOP majority following the lack of an expected “red wave” in this month’s election. And it could be a preview of a volatile majority and the extent to which his tenure, if he does win the speakership, will be hostage to the whims of the far-right Freedom Caucus and pro-Trump lawyers who want to use their majority as a weapon against Biden. But McCarthy also has to worry that two years of relentless, partisan investigations could turn off voters and lead them to snatch away the party’s fragile edge in the House in the 2024 election.

    But before the 2024 election gets into full swing, there’s unfinished business from 2022. Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock and Republican challenger Herschel Walker go head-to-head in a runoff on December 6 after neither broke the 50 percent threshold the first time around.

    Former President Barack Obama, who was the most effective Democratic messenger in the midterms, is due to campaign for Warnock on Thursday. Walker’s chances could depend on whether he is able to win over a significant block of Republican voters who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for him despite backing Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. Walker’s problem is that he’s a protégé of Trump, from whom Kemp kept a good distance.

    After Trump announced his 2024 campaign days after the midterms, Warnock and his supporters started framing the runoff as the first chance for Democrats to stop Trump’s bid to return to the White House. Their argument recalled complaints by many Republicans that Trump’s intervention in two 2020 Senate runoffs in Georgia cost the GOP the chance to control the Senate.

    This might all be about one seat. But holding the Senate 51-49 rather than 50-50 would be huge for Democrats because it would insulate them from the incapacitation of one of their members and could diminish the power of Manchin, who has been a stubborn brake on Biden’s aspirations for two years.

    The former president finds himself under unusual political pressure inside the Republican Party he has dominated since 2015. His backing of several losing, election-denying and unpolished candidates in the midterms angered many key figures in the party. His hosting of Fuentes at the same time as rapper Kanye West at his Mar-a-Lago estate worried Republicans who fear that while he may be a formidable candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, Trump’s empathy for the far-right will again doom him before a national electorate.

    Another potential Republican presidential candidate, outgoing Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, condemned the incident as “very troubling” on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    “I don’t think it’s a good idea for a leader that’s setting an example for the country or the party to meet with (an) avowed racist or anti-Semite,” Hutchinson said. “You want to diminish their strength, not empower them. Stay away from it.”

    Trump acknowledged the meeting in a Truth Social post, but claimed he knew nothing about Fuentes. He also did not disavow him or his views.

    This latest storm comes as the new special counsel Jack Smith, blasted by Trump as a “political hitman,” gets up to speed on the serious legal challenges facing the ex-president, who’s suffered several recent defeats in court in his bid to delay accountability. Trump’s early declaration of a campaign – apparently to quell the buzz around possible alternative Republican candidates like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis – leaves the former president needing a way to create some traction in December and in the early months of the year when he might find it hardest to win political exposure.

    The opening stages of the campaign will begin to answer the central question of Trump’s 2024 run – whether his so far rock solid appeal to the GOP base will counter concerns in the wider party about his broader viability.

    Trump’s decision to jump in the race has also increased scrutiny of whether Biden, who turned 80 earlier this month, will decide to run for reelection. The president was asked by CNN’s Betsy Klein during his holiday vacation in Nantucket how his conversations about 2024 were going with his family.

    “We’re not having any. We’re celebrating,” Biden replied.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden faces a broad set of challenges at home this holiday season | CNN Politics

    Biden faces a broad set of challenges at home this holiday season | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    This holiday season looks very different from the last for many Americans, when Covid-19 test shortages and an Omicron variant surge disrupted numerous family celebrations.

    But the country is contending with a new set of complex challenges this late fall and winter. Even though Covid tests as well as an updated booster are largely accessible and Thanksgiving holiday travel nearly returned to pre-pandemic levels, a slew of pressures on the global economy and a recent surge in respiratory illnesses are expected to continue to impact on Americans in the coming months, leaving President Joe Biden with the challenge of addressing how to quell national anxieties over matters sometimes outside of the executive branch’s control.

    The latest data from the University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index shows American consumers are still not feeling very confident about the state of the US economy this holiday season. Concerns remain, for example, about high costs across spending categories associated with the holidays, despite some moderation in inflation.

    While prices on airfares, gas and hotel rooms are down from the record levels hit earlier in 2022, they’re still among the highest on record for this time of year. The ingredients for a traditional Thanksgiving meal had been estimated to cost shoppers 13.5% more this year compared to last, the market research firm IRI predicted earlier this month, using data from October – although some food costs appear to have declined closer to the holiday.

    The White House maintains that Biden remains laser focused on tackling inflation and lessening the impacts of high prices – a major strain this year that’s been felt globally as a result of a myriad of factors, including supply chain disruptions and Russia’s war on Ukraine.

    “We are seeing signs of progress ahead of the Holiday season – grocery prices rose by 0.4% in October, a significant deceleration from the increases this summer, and the smallest increase since December of last year,” a White House official told CNN, adding that input costs (the cost to produce a good or service) “have declined for the last 2 months, which points to more progress on grocery prices in the months ahead.”

    Other potential product shortages and price hikes could be seen as early next year, as concerns over a potential rail strike have resurfaced after the largest rail union recently announced its rank-and-file members rejected a tentative agreement forged in September.

    Brian Dodge, president of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, had told CNN that Christmas holiday inventories are not likely be broadly impacted by a strike. But he conceded that a rail strike in early December could disrupt the shipment of some larger and bulky items that are transported by rail this holiday season.

    Biden got personally involved in discussions to reach the tentative deal that averted a strike with the nation’s major freight railroads earlier this fall. And White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre had said he’s been directly involved in discussions once again. But on Thursday, the president appeared to contradict his top messenger, saying he is “not directly engaged” with railway and labor negotiators. “I can’t (comment) because it’s the middle of negotiations, still. My team has been in touch with all the parties… and I have – I have not directly engaged yet because they’re still talking,” Biden said.

    Ahead of this week’s holiday, White House officials shared a new graphic highlighting the president’s accomplishments “for chatting with your Uncle at Thanksgiving.” The talking points led with lines on efforts to lower costs and contended that “despite global challenges, we’re making progress.” One bullet point, however, misstated that there would be “NO taxes on people making above $400k – he kept his promise.”

    Along with deploying a messaging strategy aimed at highlighting existing accomplishments, as Biden heads into the new year, the White House is looking to highlight ways the Inflation Reduction Act will lower everyday costs, the official told CNN. Since getting back from his latest foreign trip, Biden has already touted several provisions in the law that go into effect on January 1 – including home energy efficiency tax credits and a $35 cap on the cost of insulin for seniors on Medicare.

    Home heating costs are also on the rise – up 18% nationwide on top of last year’s 17% spike, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association.

    Several factors are driving hikes in home heating prices, including the war in Ukraine, OPEC+ cuts, a surge in energy exports, lower energy inventories, and a high demand for natural gas in the US electric power sector, according to the Energy Information Administration.

    The Biden administration in November announced the distribution of $4.5 billion in federal assistance to help lower many Americans’ heating bills this winter through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. However, advocates say additional funding is needed. This month the Department of Energy also announced the allocation of nearly $9 billion to states and tribes for home efficiency programs under the Inflation Reduction Act.

    And just as Americans gather with loved ones across the country this holiday season, there have also been concerns about cases of respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, influenza and Covid-19.

    The administration is embarking on a new, six-week push to deliver more updated Covid-19 boosters into arms. More than 35 million people in the United States have already received the updated bivalent booster shot, but that’s just a fraction of those eligible to get it.

    Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House Covid-19 response coordinator, said on “CNN This Morning” Wednesday that he is confident that the US will get through the current influx of respiratory viruses that are going around the country.

    When it comes to RSV, Jha said “certainly a problem, we have seen it now, looks like it has peaked nationally, starting to turn down.”

    “In terms of hospital capacity, we have been in touch with every jurisdiction around the country, we have been very clear if you need extra help, the federal government is ready to help, ready to send in support staff, ready to support, send in additional supplies,” he said. “I am confident we’re going to get through this, particularly if people step up and protect their families by getting the Covid and flu vaccine.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The federal government just took another big swipe at illegal robocalls | CNN Business

    The federal government just took another big swipe at illegal robocalls | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN Business
     — 

    The federal government took another big swipe at illegal robocalls on Tuesday, as it moved to block a voice provider from the entire US phone network for the very first time.

    The order by the Federal Communications Commission targets Global UC, a company that claims to serve more than 200 businesses globally with low-cost international calling services.

    According to the FCC, Global UC’s unprecedented termination comes after it failed to comply with US regulations aimed at countering illegal robocalls. The requirements include implementing caller ID verification technology and providing the agency with explanations about how it otherwise fights spam robocalls.

    While the FCC has previously issued threats to some providers warning they could be blocked from the US phone network over a repeated failure to comply, Tuesday’s action marks the first time the agency has followed through, reflecting the US government’s latest escalation against illegal robocalls.

    Global UC didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The FCC order effectively severs Global UC’s access to the US phone network by forcing other US voice providers to stop doing business with the target company, prohibiting the other providers from accepting phone traffic from Global UC.

    Previously, an FCC official has told CNN that depending on how a voice provider’s business may be configured, such an order could amount to an effective death sentence for the company, because a provider that cannot send or receive calls to others in the network may be unable to stay afloat.

    “This is a novel way to stop robocalls and it’s one we are going to keep using until we get this junk off the line,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel in a statement.

    According to its website, Global UC is a subsidiary of a global firm with six subsidiaries and millions of subscribers around the world.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP-led states press Supreme Court to keep Biden student debt forgiveness on hold | CNN Politics

    GOP-led states press Supreme Court to keep Biden student debt forgiveness on hold | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A collection of Republican-led states argued on Wednesday that the Supreme Court should keep President Joe Biden’s student debt forgiveness policy on hold while the litigation around it plays out, pointing to fact that the Biden administration has extended its pause on student loan payments.

    The Republican states, which have already obtained an appeals court order blocking the implementation of the controversial program, said the extension showed that there would be no harm inflicted by the court order being left in place.

    “The Department [of Education] can point to no emergency or imminent harm because, just yesterday, the agency extended the payment pause on student loans until the summer of 2023,” they wrote in the new filing.

    Federal student loan payments were set to resume in January after a years-long pandemic pause. But the Biden administration said Tuesday that it is extending the pause until 60 days after the pending litigation over the forgiveness program is resolved. If the program has not been implemented and the litigation has not been resolved by June 30, payments will resume 60 days after that.

    The Wednesday filing by the states came in response to a request from the Biden administration that the Supreme Court lift the hold that has been placed on the student debt relief program, which would forgive up to $20,000 in loans for individual borrowers who earned less than $125,000 in either 2020 or 2021.

    The Republican states accused the Biden administration of relying “on the COVID-19 pandemic” as “a pretext to mask the President’s true goal of fulfilling his campaign promise to erase student-loan debt.”

    The policy was set to begin going into effect earlier this fall, but was blocked by the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a lawsuit brought by Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina.

    They claim that in rolling out the program, Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona went beyond the authority he has under law to cancel individual debts. They also argue that the department violated administrative law in how it launched the policy.

    The states defended the appeals court order blocking the relief program, telling the Supreme Court on Wednesday that they will suffer the types of harm that make it appropriate for a court to intervene.

    This procedural threshold – known as standing – has been a legal obstacle for many opponents of the program who have tried to block it in court, including challengers whose requests for Supreme Court intervention were previously denied. The states in the new filing argue that they’ll suffer a loss of tax revenue and other kinds of injuries if the debt relief program goes into effect.

    The states also pointed to the ruling from a federal judge in Texas in a separate case that struck down the student debt relief policy, which the administration has appealed to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling will remain in effect even if the Supreme Court lifts the hold placed by the 8th Circuit, the states noted in their filing Wednesday.

    The Biden administration has indicated it will take that case to the Supreme Court as well if the 5th Circuit leaves in place the ruling striking it down.

    In the request it put before the Supreme Court, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that leaving the program on hold “leaves millions of economically vulnerable borrowers in limbo, uncertain about the size of their debt and unable to make financial decisions with an accurate understanding of their future repayment obligations.”

    Prelogar told the Supreme Court that the program was a lawful endeavor “to ensure that borrowers affected by a national emergency are not worse off in relation to their student loans.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ending a ‘nightmare’ in Venezuela: How the US government brought seven Americans home | CNN Politics

    Ending a ‘nightmare’ in Venezuela: How the US government brought seven Americans home | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    On October 1, five of the so-called Citgo 6 were woken up early in their Venezuelan prison by a guard telling them to “get dressed up properly.”

    The men put on their yellow prison suits – “We called it our ‘Minion’ suit,” Jose Pereira said – before they were instructed by the head of the prison to instead change into civilian clothes.

    “We said, ‘Why?’ and he said, ‘Well, because you’re going home,’” Pereira recounted to CNN.

    The day would mark the end to the “nightmare” that began nearly five years prior, when the six oil executives were lured to Venezuela for what they were told would be a business meeting right before Thanksgiving 2017.

    In addition to securing the release of Pereira, Jorge Toledo, Tomeu Vadell, Alirio Zambrano and Jose Luis Zambrano, the Biden administration would also bring home two other Americans who were also designated as wrongfully detained by the US State Department – Matthew Heath and Osman Khan – as part of a prisoner swap with the regime of embattled Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

    Nearly five years to the day that the “Citgo 6’s” plight began, CNN has learned new details about the extensive efforts leading up to the release of the seven Americans and the day they were freed, as well as the pleas from the family of one of the at least four US citizens who were left behind.

    October’s prisoner swap came after months of back-and-forth between the US government, led by Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs Roger Carstens, and the Maduro regime, with which the US does not have formal diplomatic relations.

    Carstens had brought home two Americans – the sixth member of the “Citgo 6,” Gustavo Cárdenas, as well as Cuban-US dual citizen Jorge Alberto Fernandez – in March, but another trip in June ended without a prisoner release.

    In late September, about a week before the swap, “we realized that we might have an opportunity,” Carstens said in an exclusive interview with CNN.

    US President Joe Biden had signed off on commuting the sentences of Efraín Antonio Campo Flores and Francisco Flores de Freitas, the so-called narco nephews, who were convicted in a US federal court in 2016 and sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2017 for conspiring to import cocaine into the US.

    With that key component needed for the prisoner swap in place, the two sides “sketched out what we thought might be a good deal,” Carstens said.

    “On Thursday night, late, close to midnight, we solidified what would end up being the final deal,” Carstens said.

    The US has plans for recovery of detainees around the world, and Friday saw Carstens’ team quietly putting the plan for Venezuela into action. On Friday night, Carstens flew commercially from Washington, DC, to meet up with the US government aircraft, and on Saturday morning, he took off on a mission to carry out the prisoner swap, with Campo Flores and Flores de Freitas, the two Venezuelan “narco-nephews,” in tow.

    Meanwhile that Saturday morning, back in Venezuela, the “Citgo 6,” were skeptical of whether they were actually going home.

    “I went through three house arrests in the five years and I wanted to make sure that the definition of home” was my definition, “because for me home is in the US, in Houston,” Toledo told CNN.

    The men were assured they were being freed, and were made to fill out paperwork, handcuffed and put into an armored vehicle to the airport. It was there that they saw, for the first time, the other two detainees, Heath and Khan. The seven were loaded onto a small plane, Toledo recalled, and in addition to the handcuffs, their feet were tied.

    “They wanted to cover our heads also,” Toledo said, but after “a lot of push back from everyone,” their heads were left uncovered.

    After a short flight, the plane landed in the Caribbean island of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Toledo and Pereira told CNN.

    Jose Pereira stands in front of his likeness on a mural in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2022.

    On board Carstens’ plane, one of two aircraft dispatched for the mission, the team was nailing down final details, such as the choreography of the swap, and as is the case in every detainee swap situation, going through contingency plans – though Carstens told CNN that he trusted his Venezuelan interlocutor to deliver on the agreement.

    A few minutes after the Venezuelan plane with the detainees landed – also one of two aircraft – the first US government plane with Carstens and the two nephews on board touched down.

    “We did the planning thing and after that it was just going over the plan in my head, just trying to think if I missed anything, and then suddenly we’re landing,” Carstens recalled.

    “I got out, met my interlocutor in the middle,” Carstens said. The US envoy brought his Venezuelan counterpart on board to check Campo Flores and Flores de Freitas before he was brought to a plane parked at the far end of the runway, with the seven Americans on board, to do a head count.

    “I jumped on the plane, and everyone’s whooping and cheering and the whole bit and everyone’s super excited,” Carstens recalled. “I think I said something like, ‘Hey, guys, the President of the United States and Secretary Blinken have sent me to bring you home. We’re taking you back.”

    A group of seven Americans are pictured with their families and officials upon returning to the United States after being detained in Venezuela.

    Shortly after the head count, the Venezuelans crossed to their plane, and the seven Americans crossed to theirs.

    “It was like in any movie where you know the prisoner exchange occurs. I saw the two individuals walking toward the jet with the Venezuelan identification and then we jumped into the” US plane, Toledo said. “I didn’t know if I was living a real-life situation, or I was part of a Netflix movie.”

    “Every time someone passed, we’d give him a big hug, a big kiss,” Carstens said.

    The second US plane, which had more extensive medical equipment on board, landed about 45 minutes later after being delayed by a storm, giving the US officials time to brief the newly freed detainees on what to expect in the coming hours, days and weeks, the envoy told CNN.

    “Right before the planes lifted, we got the word that the President had called the families,” Carstens said.

    Once airborne, State Department officials lent their phones to the men so they could call their families, whom Biden had informed of their release.

    “Initially it was very difficult to speak with my wife because she was crying. She was not able to articulate a word,” Toledo said.

    When they landed in Texas, many of their family members were there waiting.

    The reunion was “a magical moment,” both Pereira and Toledo told CNN.

    While in Texas, the men underwent a Department of Defense program known as PISA (Post Isolation Support Activities) meant to acclimate them back to normal life.

    Unsurprisingly, after nearly five years away from home, the adjustment has been challenging. In addition to the physical, mental and financial toll of their detention, they have missed countless family moments.

    Jorge Toledo with his dog after returning to the United States.

    “I basically met for the first time, almost for the first time, my two granddaughters,” Toledo told CNN. He used to be a marathon runner and is trying to get back into shape for the Houston half marathon in January.

    Pereira said he is “scared to drive” because he has been away from the wheel so long, but is looking forward to making Thanksgiving – which once marked the grim milestone of their detention – a happy occasion again.

    “This is something I would never want to happen, even to my worst enemy. Because it’s so complicated coming back to a world that has totally changed,” Pereira said. “This has been like a bomb in my life.”

    For at least four Americans, however, the nightmare continues. Luke Denman, Airan Berry, Jerrel Kenemore, and Eyvin Hernandez are all detained in Venezuela; Hernandez and Kenemore were recently designated as wrongfully detained by the US State Department.

    Carstens, the special envoy, told CNN that the US has “an ongoing conversation with the other side.”

    “So while we have work to do, I’m left feeling optimistic,” he said.

    The family and friends of Hernandez, who has been detained since late March, want to see him released faster. They gathered last week in Washington, DC, to meet with administration and congressional officials, fellow families of wrongful detainees – as well as Pereira and his wife – and to call for help.

    Eyvin Hernandez, detained in Venezuela since late March, is seen in this undated photo.

    “He doesn’t deserve to be there. We need to bring him home,” his father, Pedro Martinez, tearfully told CNN, adding that his son sounded “very weak” on a recent call.

    The family shared with the White House a plea from Hernandez himself to Biden, secretly recorded and sent to his brother in August.

    “I’ve dedicated myself to public service for over 15 years. I’ve dedicated myself to helping poor and working class people on the basis that no matter what mistakes a person makes, they always should be treated fairly, humanely, with dignity and respect,” said Hernandez, an employee of the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office. “Also, no one should be abandoned at the time of their greatest need or when they’re most vulnerable.”

    “However, I don’t feel like my government feels that way about me,” Hernandez said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Anti-abortion activists say Trump will still need to win them over in 2024 | CNN Politics

    Anti-abortion activists say Trump will still need to win them over in 2024 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Anti-abortion proponents who believe Donald Trump’s crowning achievement was the overturning of Roe v. Wade say the newly declared 2024 contender will still have to earn their support in the upcoming Republican presidential primary – and he may be off to a rocky start.

    In his more-than-hour-long speech announcing his candidacy, the former president omitted any mention of his anti-abortion credentials or his appointment of three of the conservative Supreme Court justices who ultimately abolished federal abortion protections. Within hours, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a leading anti-abortion group, released a statement pointedly dismissing candidates “who shy away from this fight.”

    Though the group did not mention Trump by name, its message was clear: No matter what he did to advance the anti-abortion cause during his first term, he must continue to prove his commitment as he seeks a second term or risk losing some conservative coalition support.

    Trump “raised the bar very high for what it meant to be a pro-life president,” SBA president Marjorie Dannenfelser told CNN in an interview this week. For that reason, Dannenfelser said, she was “surprised” the former president didn’t do more to tout his anti-abortion bona fides in his campaign announcement.

    “It’s a deep moral failure not to step up in the most important moment for our movement and if you think you can breeze through Iowa and South Carolina without a strong pro-life national vision, you’re just wrong,” she said, naming two of the early voting states that can buoy or tank a presidential candidate’s bid.

    Others said Trump, who has confided to aides that he believes the abortion issue may be hurting Republican candidates, passed on a layup by touting some of his core achievements in the conservative policy sphere but declining to mention his first-term efforts to limit abortion access. Instead, Trump highlighted his deliverance of tax cuts and deregulatory and counterterrorism actions by his administration as he addressed throngs of loyalists in the ballroom of his Mar-a-Lago estate on Tuesday.

    “For sure it was a missed opportunity,” said Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life. “President Trump has done many, many things we are grateful for but regardless, whoever gets our vote will have to earn it.”

    “We expect to be courted in the primary process and the person we want to get behind will be unapologetic in speaking up to defend the pre-born and calling for federal protections,” Hawkins said.

    The demand among leading abortion opponents for unflinching advocates comes as Trump, whose muted reaction to the overturning of Roe did not go unnoticed among anti-abortion conservatives, is expected to face primary challengers whose advancement of anti-abortion efforts date much further back than his own and may be more willing to embrace more stringent restrictions on abortion access in the months to come, possibly at the federal level. Trump has also found himself weakened in the wake of midterm defeats as some deep-pocketed GOP donors and elected Republicans call for the party to move on from him, underscoring the importance of keeping the conservative grassroots in his corner.

    “He does not want to risk any loss in the pro-life, evangelical or Catholic spheres,” Dannenfelser said.

    “I think Republicans who are running away from the issue right now are wrong,” added Tom McClusky, director of government affairs at CatholicVote, an advocacy organization that opposes abortion and spent $9.7 million in the 2020 presidential contest to boost Trump over Joe Biden.

    Trump’s apparent lack of interest in promoting his anti-abortion achievements is not new, McClusky added, saying that “he didn’t mention all that unless prodded during his presidency.” After the Supreme Court ended federal abortion rights this summer – kicking authority on the issue to state governments – Trump took a brief victory lap, declaring in a statement that the landmark ruling wouldn’t have happened without him “nominating and getting three highly respected and strong Constitutionalists confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.”

    Meanwhile, other elements of Trump’s reaction to the ruling raised questions among abortion opponents about his support for new laws restricting the procedure, particularly after the former president had previously sidestepped questions about whether he supported a controversial Texas law banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for life-threatening medical emergencies.

    “This brings everything back to the states where it has always belonged,” Trump told Fox News in the wake of the June 24 Dobbs decision.

    At a September campaign rally in Ohio for then-Senate GOP hopeful J.D. Vance, Trump once again affirmed his believe that abortion rights or restrictions should be determined “in the states,” adding that “Republicans have to get smart with that issue.”

    “It’s turned over to the states and it’s working out… The places where it’s not working out, it will work out,” Trump said.

    But if he repeats that in the primary, Trump could land himself in hot water with anti-abortion groups that have been championing efforts to legislate abortion at the federal level.

    “One thing that will not be satisfactory and a disqualifier is any candidate who says this is a state issue,” said Dannenfelser, who has remained in touch with Trump since he left office.

    Others simply want to see Republican presidential candidates – including Trump – talking about abortion as much as possible in the months to come. Prior to the midterms elections, however, Trump expressed concern to advisers that the reversal of Roe would backfire on GOP candidates by injecting a jolt of energy into the Democratic base, according to two people familiar with his comments.

    One of those sources said Trump has since griped to aides that his prediction was right, partly blaming the GOP’s underwhelming midterm performance on the attention abortion received from voters. CNN exit poll data found that 61 percent of voters were displeased with the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and about seven in 10 of those voters backed Democratic candidates running for Congress.

    A Trump campaign spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

    “A lot of folks seemed skittish about talking about abortion immediately after Roe’s reversal. We believe that it’s dangerous for Republicans not when you talk about it but when you don’t talk,” said Hawkins.

    Democrats have similarly taken note of Trump’s caution around the abortion subject, noting that they will continue to highlight his record.

    “It’s no surprise Donald Trump is terrified about talking about his own record of paving the way for abortion bans across the country,” said Ammar Moussa, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, adding that “Democrats will remind voters how [Trump] said there should be ‘some form of punishment’ for women who get an abortion’” during his 2016 presidential campaign.

    With Trump kicking off the 2024 primary earlier this week, several abortion opponents have said they have already been impressed with at least one of his potential rivals – former Vice President Mike Pence – and are closely watching to see how others handle the issue as they near possible campaigns of their own.

    That includes Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, potentially Trump’s leading foe if he mounts a campaign, who signed a 15-week abortion ban into law this past April but hasn’t committed to including additional legislative restrictions in an upcoming special session of the Florida state legislature, despite calls from abortion opponents to do so.

    “We would like to see him do more and see him speak more loudly,” said Hawkins, who remains hopeful that DeSantis’ sweeping reelection victory will embolden him “to take on additional measures in this coming legislative session.”

    Pence, for his part, has long charted a political identity with anti-abortion advocacy at its core since his days as a conservative congressman from Indiana. Just weeks after the Dobbs decision was handed down, the former vice president traveled to South Carolina to deliver a speech outlining a Republican policy blueprint for “post-Roe America.” He and his wife Karen have also been quietly raising funds for crisis pregnancy centers across the country and in keynote remarks at a gala for Susan B. Anthony Pro-life America in September, Pence also appeared to endorse Republican efforts to shepherd a national abortion ban through Congress.

    “I welcome any and all efforts to advance the cause of life in state capitals or in the nation’s capital,” Pence said at the time.

    At a CNN town hall this week, Pence praised the Dobbs decision, saying it gave “the American people a new beginning for life.” While suggesting that laws around abortion had been “returned to the states and the American people, where it belongs,” Pence also said he remains hopeful that all 50 states will eventually “stand for the sanctity of life.”

    Marc Short, a top adviser to the former vice president, said Pence will continue to train a spotlight on the issue whether or not he decides to run for president in 2024.

    “He’s always said we now have to take our case to the American people in a winsome way, while others have said, ‘just stop talking about it,’” Short said, adding that abortion “has never been a comfortable issue for President Trump and one he thinks of as a political loser.”

    While Pence’s intense focus on the issue has scored him points with abortion opponents, Short said it has also rankled some donors who don’t want to see third rail issues “highlighted as much [or] don’t necessarily agree with his position.” Pence, who is in the midst of promoting his new book “So Help Me God” that chronicles his time as vice president, has “loyal supporters who don’t necessarily share his views on life” but continue to support him because they consider him “a role model in public service,” Short said.

    After federal abortion rights were overturned, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – another possible 2024 contender – tweeted that conservatives would soon see “which politicians supported the pro-life cause to win elections, and which actually believed it.” But in a September interview with the Sioux City Journal during one of several visits he has made to Iowa, Pompeo also declined to offer support for Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds’ push to outlaw abortion after six weeks in her state.

    “Iowa will sort through it for itself, the state of Kansas will sort through it for itself,” said Pompeo, a former congressman from Kansas, which earlier this year rejected a proposed state constitutional amendment that could have paved the way for a statewide ban on abortion. Pompeo described the vote as “very confusing.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • World leaders met all week to address global issues. Putin appears to no longer have a seat at the table | CNN

    World leaders met all week to address global issues. Putin appears to no longer have a seat at the table | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Bangkok, Thailand
    CNN
     — 

    The three major summits of world leaders that took place across Asia in the past week have made one thing clear: Vladimir Putin is now sidelined on the world stage.

    Putin, whose attack on Ukraine over the past nine months has devastated the European country and roiled the global economy, declined to attend any of the diplomatic gatherings – and instead found himself subject to significant censure as international opposition to his war appeared to harden.

    A meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders in Bangkok closed on Saturday with a declaration that references nations’ stances expressed in other forums, including in a UN resolution deploring “in the strongest terms” Russian aggression against Ukraine, while noting differing views.

    It echoes verbatim a declaration from the Group of 20 (G20) leaders summit in Bali earlier this week.

    ‘Beyond logic’: Retired general baffled by Russia’s military move

    “Most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine and stressed it is causing immense human suffering and exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy,” the document said, adding that there were differing “assessments” on the situation within the group.

    Discussions within the summits aside, the week has also shown Putin – who it is believed launched his invasion in a bid to restore Russia’s supposed former glory – as increasingly isolated, with the Russian leader hunkered down in Moscow and unwilling even to face counterparts at major global meetings.

    A fear of potential political maneuvers against him should he leave the capital, an obsession with personal security and a desire to avoid scenes of confrontation at the summits – especially as Russia faces heavy losses in the battlefield – were all likely calculations that went into Putin’s decision, according to Alexander Gabuev, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Meanwhile, he may not want to turn unwanted attention on the handful of nations that have remained friendly to Russia, for example India and China, whose leaders Putin saw in a regional summit in Uzbekistan in September.

    “He doesn’t want to be this toxic guy,” Gabuev said.

    But even among countries who have not taken a hardline against Russia, there are signs of lost patience, if not with Russia itself, than against the knock-on effects of its aggression. Strained energy, issues of food security and spiraling global inflation are now squeezing economies the world over.

    Indonesia, which hosted the G20, has not explicitly condemned Russia for the invasion, but its President Joko Widodo told world leaders on Tuesday “we must end the war.”

    India, which has been a key purchaser of Russia’s energy even as the West shunned Russian fuel in recent months, also reiterated its call to “find a way to return to the path of ceasefire” at the G20. The summit’s final declaration includes a sentence saying, “Today’s era must not be of war” – language that echoes what Modi told Putin in September, when they met on the sidelines of the summit in Uzbekistan.

    It’s less clear if China, whose strategic partnership with Russia is bolstered by a close rapport between leader Xi Jinping and Putin, has come to any shift in stance. Beijing has long refused to condemn the invasion, or even refer to it as such. It’s instead decried Western sanctions and amplified Kremlin talking points blaming the US and NATO for the conflict, although this rhetoric has appeared to be somewhat dialed back on its state-controlled domestic media in recent months.

    Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelensky addresses G20 leaders via video link from his office in Kyiv.

    In sidelines meetings with Western leaders this past week, however, Xi reiterated China’s call for a ceasefire through dialogue, and, according to readouts from his interlocutors, agreed to oppose the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine – although those remarks were not included in China’s account of the talks.

    But observers of China’s foreign policy say its desire to maintain strong ties with Russia likely remains unshaken.

    “While these statements are an indirect criticism of Vladimir Putin, I don’t think they are aimed at distancing China from Russia,” said Brian Hart, a fellow with the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Xi is saying these things to an audience that wants to hear them.”

    Russian isolation, however, appears even more stark against the backdrop of Xi’s diplomatic tour in Bali and Bangkok this week.

    Though US President Joe Biden’s administration has named Beijing – not Moscow – the “most serious long-term challenge” to the global order, Xi was treated as a valuable global partner by Western leaders, many of whom met with the Chinese leader for talks aimed at increasing communication and cooperation.

    Xi had an exchange with US Vice President Kamala Harris, who is representing the US at the APEC summit in Bangkok, at the event on Saturday. Harris said in a Tweet after she noted a “key message” from Biden’s G20 meeting with Xi – the importance of maintaining open lines of communication “to responsibly manage the competition between our countries.”

    And in an impassioned call for peace delivered to a meeting of business leaders alongside the APEC summit on Friday, French President Emmanuel Macron appeared to draw a distinction between Russia’s actions and tensions with China.

    While referencing US-China competition and increasing confrontation in Asia’s regional waters, Macron said: “What makes this war different is that it is an aggression against international rules. All countries … have stability because of international rules,” before calling for Russia to come back “to the table” and “respect international order.”

    US Vice President Kamala Harris meets with US allies at APEC following North Korea's ballistic missile launch on Friday.

    The urgency of that sentiment was heightened after a Russian-made missile landed in Poland, killing two people on Tuesday, during the G20 summit. As a NATO member, a threat to Polish security could trigger a response from the whole bloc.

    The situation defused after initial investigation suggested the missile came from the Ukrainian side in an accident during missile defense – but highlighted the potential for a miscalculation to spark a world war.

    A day after that situation, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken pointed to what he called a “split-screen.”

    Kaja Kallas Amanpour

    NATO must keep ‘cool head’ over missile incident in Poland, says Estonian PM


    07:40

    – Source:
    CNN

    “As the world works to help the most vulnerable people, Russia targets them; as leaders worldwide reaffirmed our commitment to the UN Charter and international rules that benefit all our people, President Putin continues to try to shred those same principles,” Blinken told reporters Thursday night in Bangkok.

    Coming into the week of international meetings, the US and its allies were ready to project that message to their international peers. And while strong messages have been made, gathering consensus around that view has not been easy – and differences remain.

    The G20 and APEC declarations both acknowledge divisions between how members voted in the UN to support its resolution “deploring” Russian aggression, and say that while most members “strongly condemned” the war, “there were other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions.”

    Even making such an expression with caveats was an arduous process at both summits, according to officials. Indonesia’s Jokowi said G20 leaders were up until “midnight” discussing the paragraph on Ukraine.

    Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and Chinese leader Xi Jinping meet at APEC on November 18, 2022 in Bangkok, Thailand.

    “There was a lot of pressure that came after the G20 reached consensus on their communique,” Matt Murray, the US senior official for APEC said in an interview with CNN after the summit’s close, adding the US had been consistent during lower-level meetings “all year long” on the need to address the war in the forum, given its impact on trade and food security.

    “In each and every instance where we didn’t get consensus earlier, it was because Russia blocked the statement,” he said. Meanwhile, “economies in the middle” were concerned about the invasion, but not sure it should be part of the agenda, according to Murray, who said statements released this week at APEC were the result of more than 100 hours of talks, in person and online.

    Nations in the groupings have various geo-strategic and economic relationships with Russia, which impact their stances. But another concern some Asian nations may have is whether measures to censure Russia are part of an American push to weaken Moscow, according former Thai Foreign Minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon, speaking to CNN in the days ahead of the summit.

    Boris Bondarev Putin split

    Ex-Russian official who turned on Putin predicts his next moves

    “Countries are saying we don’t want to just be a pawn in this game to be used to weaken another power,” said Suphamongkhon, an advisory board member of the RAND Corporation Center for Asia Pacific Policy. Instead framing censure of Russia around its “violation of international law and war crimes that may have been committed” would hit on aspects of the situation that “everyone rejects here,” he said.

    Rejection of Russia along those lines may also send a message to China, which itself has flouted an international ruling refuting its territorial claims in the South China Sea and has vowed to “reunify” with the self-governing democracy of Taiwan, which it’s never controlled, by force if necessary.

    While efforts this week may have upped pressure on Putin, the Russian leader has experience with such dynamics: prior to Putin’s expulsion over his annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014, the Group of Seven (G7) bloc was the Group of Eight – and it remains to be seen whether the international expressions will have an impact.

    But without Putin in the fold, leaders stressed this week, suffering will go on – and there will be a hole in the international system.

    This story has been updated with new information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]


    Bangkok, Thailand
    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Jim Jordan and James Comer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hunter Biden has denied wrongdoing in his business activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Donald Trump is no Grover Cleveland | CNN Politics

    Donald Trump is no Grover Cleveland | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

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



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    It’s American carnage, round three.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden steps into G20 aiming to unite leaders in opposition to Russia’s war on Ukraine | CNN Politics

    Biden steps into G20 aiming to unite leaders in opposition to Russia’s war on Ukraine | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Bali, Indonesia
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden is confronting competing issues at home and abroad while he’s at the Group of 20 Summit in Bali this week, using the moment on the world’s stage to lean into international support for condemning Russia’s aggression while also facing the prospect of hearing Donald Trump announce his next run for the presidency.

    Administration officials previewing Biden’s G20 summit activities have their sights set on the coalition’s efforts to voice its opposition against the war in Ukraine, which could send a powerful signal amongst a group that’s so far had fragmented approaches to the Kremlin’s aggression.

    This marks the first time the group has gathered in-person since the start of the invasion, and most G20 members are expected to sign onto a statement condemning Russia’s war in Ukraine “and the human suffering it has caused both for Ukrainians and for families in the developing world that are facing food and fuel insecurity as a result,” a senior administration official said.

    Such an expression of condemnation has been the work of months of diplomacy between G20 leaders. However, it’s not clear yet exactly which countries will sign onto the declaration.

    Although the G20 is comprised of world powers who have long backed Ukraine during the war, it also includes other nations that have been tepid in their response to Russia’s aggression – including India, China, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, the host of this year’s summit. The coalition, which is broadly focused on the global economy, also includes Russia itself. But Russian President Vladimir Putin is not making an appearance at the summit this year.

    Since the spring, US officials have anticipated a showdown at this year’s G20 over the war. Biden has stated Russia should no longer be a member of the bloc, though expelling Moscow would require support from all of the G20’s members.

    As of now, no official “family photo” is listed on a schedule, a sign of the deep acrimony within the G20 spurred by the war in Ukraine.

    The president’s diplomatic Tuesday – a day working alongside leaders that’s capped off with a gala dinner – is expected to precede a 2024 presidential campaign announcement by Biden’s predecessor, Trump, from the other side of the world. The prospective announcement would set the stage for a two-year battle for the American presidency, having the power to cast a shadow over Biden’s efforts to unify world leaders – some already personally stung by Trump’s nationalist approach.

    Biden and his team have already spent time during his multi-leg, cross-continental trip abroad addressing domestic politics, suggesting the issue has not only loomed on their minds, but also among their foreign counterparts in meetings throughout their travels.

    On Sunday, US national security adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters that “many leaders” at the ASEAN Summit addressed the midterms with Biden, that many leaders were “following them closely” and that the president now feels he has a strong position on the international stage.

    Vote counts for midterm races last Tuesday continue to trickle in, with Democrats only securing their continued majority in the US Senate this past weekend and the future of the US House of Representatives remaining up in the air. But Biden – who has frequently cast the US’ dynamic with other world powers as a global fight between democracy and autocracy – brought up the political headwinds working in his favor on Monday in Bali after he took part in a roughly three-hour meeting with Xi Jinping.

    At a news conference after his meeting with Xi, Biden sought to cast the election results seen so far as a victory for the future of American democracy – a matter he had said was at stake at the polls.

    “The American people proved once again that democracy is who we are. There was a strong rejection of election deniers at every level from those seeking to lead our states and those seeking to serve in congress and also those seeking to oversee the elections,” Biden said at the start of his remarks after the Xi meeting.

    On Tuesday, Biden will participate in working sessions and a luncheon with leaders at the summit. He’ll also co-host an event on the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, which the White House said “aims to mobilize $600 billion in the next five years with G7 partners to deliver sustainable infrastructure and advance U.S. national security and economic security interests.” The president will later meet with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni of Italy and end the night at a gala dinner.

    The meeting with Meloni will be Biden’s first chance to confer the new Italian prime minister in person since she took office in October – when she became the country’s most far-right leader since Benito Mussolini.

    The two leaders undoubtedly have differences on LGBT rights, abortion rights and immigration policies. But they’re expected to focus on shared interests – in particular, their support of Ukraine. According to the White House, Biden and Meloni will discuss “cooperation on shared global challenges, including those posed by the People’s Republic of China, and our ongoing efforts to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression.”

    The global infrastructure initiative event follows a launch in 2021 amongst G7 partners to better position the US and its allies to compete with China.

    China’s Belt and Road Initiative, first announced in 2013 under Xi, aims to build ports, roads and railways to create new trade corridors linking China to Africa and the rest of Eurasia. The Chinese-funded, cross-continental infrastructure initiative has been seen as an extension of the country’s sharp ascent to global power.

    At the summit, Biden is also expected to “speak to energy security as a core issue facing the global economy,” calling for a price cap as a “key way that we can help to preserve global energy security.”

    Other topics at the summit, the senior administration official said, include economic coordination, climate change, and the Covid-19 pandemic, with new announcements expected on digital infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific and solar power in Honduras.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden and Xi sit down for high-stakes first in-person meeting as presidents | CNN Politics

    Biden and Xi sit down for high-stakes first in-person meeting as presidents | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Bali, Indonesia
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden on Monday greeted his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in person for the first time since taking office, their handshake launching high-stakes talks whose effects could ripple around the world.

    Biden and Xi walked toward each other from opposite sides of a hotel lobby and shook hands in front of a row of US and Chinese flags just after 5:30 p.m. local time. They smiled for cameras and Xi – through a translator – appeared to say, “Good to see you.”

    “As leaders of our two nations, we share responsibility, in my view, to show that China and the United States can manage our differences, prevent competition from becoming anything ever nearing conflict and to find ways to work together on urgent global issues that require our mutual cooperation,” Biden said as the talks got underway.

    “The world expects, I believe, China and the United States to play key roles in addressing global challenges,” he said.

    Speaking second, Xi seemed to offer what could be interpreted as a pointed message to his counterpart, who has spent more than half-a-century on the world stage.

    “A statesman should think about and know where to lead his country,” Xi said through a translator. “He should also think about and know how to get along with other countries and the wider world.”

    The two leaders’ talks Monday may last only a few hours, but could have consequences stretching months or even years as the world’s largest economies veer toward increasingly hostile relations.

    The moments spent together on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit here will amount to only a fraction of the time the two men have been in each other’s company since 2011. Biden has claimed that as vice president, he spent north of 70 hours with Xi and traveled 17,000 miles with him across China and the United States – both exaggerations, but still reflective of a relationship that is now perhaps the most important on the planet.

    Biden hopes coming face-to-face again after nearly two years communicating only by phone and video-conference can yield a more strategically valuable result, even if he enters the talks with little expectation they can produce anything concrete.

    At the beginning of their bilateral meeting in Bali, Biden said he found substance in “face-to-face discussions” between the two leaders.

    “As you know, I’m committed to keeping lines of communications open – between you and me personally but our government across the board, as our two countries have so much that we have an opportunity to deal with,” Biden said.

    The meeting Monday begins at a remarkably low moment in US-China ties.

    Relations have deteriorated rapidly amid economic disputes and an increasingly militarized standoff over Taiwan. The tensions have led to a decline in cooperation on areas where the two countries once shared common interests, like combating climate change and containing North Korea’s nuclear program.

    In a national security strategy document released last month, Biden for the first time identified China as posing “America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge,” and wrote the country was the “only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to advance that objective.”

    There was almost no expectation among American officials that any of those issues could be resolved simply by getting Biden and Xi in the same room. The prospect of a joint statement to be released afterward was considered a nonstarter.

    Just arranging the meeting itself required US and Chinese officials to establish lines of communication after Beijing furiously cut off most channels following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan over the summer.

    “Every matter associated with this meeting, from phone calls to logistics, has been very carefully considered, negotiated, and engaged between the two sides,” a senior US administration official said.

    Planning for Monday’s meeting predated Pelosi’s trip, and discussions continued between US and Chinese officials despite Beijing’s furor. The process was “serious, very sustained and professional in the best traditions of US-China diplomacy,” the official said.

    A second official acknowledged the talks setting up the meeting were not always friendly.

    “I won’t say that the conversations weren’t contentious because obviously there’s lots of areas where we have differences and challenges,” the official said. “The dozens of hours we have spent talking to our Chinese counterparts has definitely surfaced many of those issues.”

    For his part, Biden takes meetings like this “incredibly seriously” and reads extensively beforehand. In meetings with advisers, he runs through various scenarios for how the meeting might go.

    “He goes through ‘if this happens, then should we handle it this way,’” the first official said. “He understands that this is, in many respects, the most important bilateral relationship. And it’s his responsibility to manage it well and he takes that very, very seriously.”

    Officials said in Monday’s meeting they expected Biden’s senior-most advisers to accompany him as part of his official delegation. And the said they expected Xi to similarly surround himself with top aides, though the US team entered the meeting expecting to see some new faces on the Chinese side amid an ongoing transition inside Xi’s inner circle.

    Biden’s aides have not set a time limit for the meeting, though Jake Sullivan, the US national security adviser, said he expected the talks to run “a couple hours” but could extend longer.

    “It’s a meeting on the margins of an international summit. So it’s not itself a kind of summit where they’re coming together in a third country or in Washington and Beijing,” he said. “So, we haven’t set a time limit on the conversation.”

    Sullivan said Biden would be “totally straightforward and direct” in the meeting, and expected Xi to be similarly candid in return.

    Of most interest to Biden and his aides is establishing some level of understanding with Xi about where the administration views the relationship with China, and learning from him how he sees ties with the United States going forward.

    The White House has used the phrase “building a floor” to describe the goal of the talks, suggesting both that Biden hopes to stop relations from falling any further and that he sees the potential for improvement.

    “We just got to figure out where the red lines are and what are the most important things to each of us going into the next two years,” Biden told reporters Sunday in Cambodia, where he was attending summit meetings with Asian leaders before traveling to Bali.

    Speaking to a small group of reporters in Bali ahead of Biden’s meeting Monday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen suggested the face-to-face was intended to stabilize a teetering relationship, and detailed hopes it would lay the groundwork for “intensive” bilateral economic engagement.

    “What I’m very much hoping is that it’s a result of the President’s bilateral role with President Xi today, we’ll engage in more intensive conversations going forward with our Chinese counterparts about the Chinese economy, global macroeconomic outcomes, and how policies both in the US and China are impacting those outcomes.”

    For Xi, the trip to Bali also marks his first journey abroad since the onset of the Covid pandemic, which prompted the Chinese government to impose strict lock downs and draconian restrictions. Xi’s reemergence on the physical world stage also comes on the heels of China’s Communist Party Congress in Beijing, during which he secured a norm-breaking third term as its leader.

    Even a week ago, most inside the White House were expecting Biden to enter the talks comparatively weakened by Democratic losses in the midterm elections. But better-than-expected results for Democrats left the president feeling as if he was entering his meetings this week with the wind at his back, according to top aides.

    “I know I’m coming in stronger, but I don’t need that,” Biden said of his own improved political fortunes on Saturday.

    US officials previewing the meeting have stressed the Biden administration is not looking to come out of it with specific “deliverables,” including a joint statement listing areas of potential cooperation. Rather, the setting is aimed at offering both Biden and Xi a significant opportunity to better share their respective countries’ goals and perspectives.

    “Xi is not an enigma to President Biden,” a senior administration official told CNN. “He knows him. And he is mindful of where Xi is trying to take China. He sees China as a competitor, and he feels confident the US can win that competition.”

    China’s pandemic-era isolation, US officials say, had made it relatively harder in recent years to get a read on Beijing’s intentions abroad as Xi declined to travel outside of China – but they believe that is all about to change.

    “We can expect them to be more assertive on the world stage,” the senior administration said. But, they added: “What that looks like is difficult to know right now.”

    Sullivan said this week that finally substituting the pandemic-era video calls with a face-to-face meeting for the first time since Biden took office “takes the conversation to a different level strategically and allows the leaders to explore in deeper detail what each of them see in terms of their intentions and priorities.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden and Xi return to the table with high stakes — and low expectations | CNN

    Biden and Xi return to the table with high stakes — and low expectations | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Bali, Indonesia
    CNN
     — 

    When Joe Biden and Xi Jinping first got to know each other more than 10 years ago, the US and China had been moving closer for three decades despite their differences.

    “The trajectory of the relationship is nothing but positive, and it’s overwhelmingly in the mutual interest of both our countries,” Biden said in 2011 when, as vice president, he visited Beijing to build a personal relationship with China’s then leader-in-waiting.

    Seated next to Xi in a Beijing hotel, Biden told a room of Chinese and American business leaders about his “great optimism about the next 30 years” for bilateral relations and praised Xi for being “straightforward.”

    “Only friends and equals can serve each other by being straightforward and honest with them,” he said.

    On Monday, the two leaders are set to meet each other for another honest exchange in Bali, Indonesia, on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit. But the mood in the room is unlikely to be as balmy as the surrounding location.

    The positivity and optimism of a decade ago has been replaced by mutual suspicion and hostility. When Biden returned to the White House as President, he was handed a US-China relationship in its worst shape in decades, with tensions flaring across trade, technology, geopolitics and ideology.

    The upcoming meeting – the first in-person encounter between Biden and Xi since the US President took office – comes at a crucial time for both leaders. Having further consolidated his power at last month’s Communist Party Congress, Xi is heading into the meeting as the strongest Chinese leader since Mao Zedong. Biden, meanwhile, arrived in Asia following a better-than-expected performance by his party in the US midterm elections – with the Democrats projected to keep the Senate in a major victory.

    The stakes of their much-anticipated encounter are high. In a world reeling from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Covid-19 pandemic and the devastation of climate change, the two major powers need to work together more than ever to instill stability – instead of driving deeper tensions along geopolitical fault lines.

    But expectations for the meeting are low. Locked in an intensifying great power rivalry, the US and China disagree with each other on just about every major issue, from Taiwan, the war in Ukraine, North Korea, the transfer of technology to the shape of the international system.

    Perhaps the only real common ground the two sides share going into the meeting is their limited hopes for what might come out of it.

    A senior White House official said Thursday Biden wants to use the talks to “build a floor” for the relationship – in other words, to prevent it from free falling into open conflict. The main objective of the sit-down is not about reaching agreements or deliverables – the two leaders will not release any joint statement afterward – but about gaining a better understanding of each other’s priorities and reducing misconceptions, according to the US official.

    US national security adviser Jake Sullivan reinforced the message Saturday to reporters aboard Air Force One, noting the meeting is unlikely to result in any major breakthroughs or dramatic shifts in the relationship.

    Hopes for a reset with Washington are similarly low in Beijing. Shi Yinhong, an international relations professor at Renmin University, said it would be an “enormous over-expectation” to believe the meeting can lead to any lasting and significant improvement in bilateral ties.

    “Given that China and the US are in a state of near-total rivalry and confrontation, there is not much possibility to anticipate that the major issues can be truly clarified,” Shi said.

    US President Joe Biden has spoken with Chinese leader Xi Jinping five times over the phone or video call since taking office in January 2020.

    At the center of their divergence is how the two nations view each other’s motives – and how detrimental these goals are to their own interests.

    “The Chinese believe the US goal is to keep China down so we can contain it. And the US believes China’s goal is to make the world safer for authoritarian states, push the US out of Asia and weaken its alliance system,” said Scott Kennedy, senior adviser in Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington.

    Each side blames the other entirely for the state of the relationship and each believes they are faring better than the other in the situation, said Kennedy, who has recently returned from a weeks-long visit to China – a rare opportunity in recent years due to China’s zero-Covid border restrictions.

    “The Chinese think they’re winning, the Americans think they’re winning, and so they’re willing to bear these costs. And they think the other side is very unlikely to make any significant changes,” Kennedy said. “All of those things reduce the likelihood of significant adjustments.”

    But experts say the very fact that the two leaders are having a face-to-face conversation is itself a positive development. Keeping dialogue open is crucial for reducing risks of misunderstanding and miscalculations, especially when suspicions run deep and tensions run high.

    Direct communication is all the more important given Xi has just secured a norm-shattering third term with a tighter grip on power than ever – and a possibility to rule for life. “There is no one else in their system who can really communicate authoritatively other than Xi Jinping,” national security adviser Sullivan said.

    On Wednesday, Biden told a news conference that he wants to “lay out what each of our red lines are” when he sits down with Xi, but experts say that might not be as straightforward as it sounds.

    “I would love to be a fly on the wall to see that conversation because I don’t think that the US or China has been very precise about what its red lines are. And I also don’t think either has been very clear about what positive rewards the other side would reap from staying within those red lines,” said Kennedy, of CSIS.

    For Beijing, no red line is starker or more crucial than its claim over Taiwan – a self-governing democracy the Chinese Communist Party has never controlled. Xi views “reunification” with the island as a key unresolved issue on China’s path toward “great rejuvenation,” a sweeping vision he has vowed to achieve by 2049.

    And perhaps no American President has angered Beijing over Taiwan in recent decades more than Biden, who has said – on four separate occasions – the US will defend the island in the event of a Chinese invasion. Each time, his aids have rushed to walk back his remarks and denied any changes in the US’ “One China” policy.

    Under the “One China” policy, Washington acknowledges Beijing’s position that Taiwan is part of China, but has never accepted its claim of sovereignty over the island. The US provides Taiwan defensive weapons, but has remained deliberately vague on whether it would intervene militarily if China attacks the island – a policy known as “strategic ambiguity.”

    US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen during her visit to Taipei this August.

    China has repeatedly accused the US of “playing with fire” and hollowing out the “one China” policy. Beijing’s anger reached a boiling point in August, when US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi brushed aside its stern warnings and landed in Taipei for a high-profile visit.

    China responded by launching large scale military exercises around Taiwan that formed an effective blockade; it also halted dialogue with the US in a number of areas, from military, climate change and cross-border crime to drug trafficking.

    Now the two leaders are sitting down in the same room – a result of weeks of intensive discussions between the two sides – Taiwan is widely expected to top their agenda. But in a sign of the contentiousness of the issue, barbs have already been traded.

    Biden has said he would make no “fundamental concessions” to Xi, and Sullivan has announced plans to brief Taiwan about the talks with an aim to make Taipei feel “secure and comfortable” about US support.

    That plan drew immediate condemnation from Beijing. “It is egregious in nature. China is firmly opposed to it,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said Friday, shortly after the ministry confirmed that Xi would meet Biden at the G20.

    The rocket force of China's People's Liberation Army conducts missile tests into the waters off the eastern coast of Taiwan on August 4.

    “The problem with China is they don’t like to meet and exchange views – they just repeat talking points. Xi Jinping is not very creative in the way he interacts with his counterparts,” said Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a professor of political science at Hong Kong Baptist University.

    Other key topics on the agenda include Russia’s war in Ukraine – another significant point of tension, as well as areas where the US hopes to cooperate with China – such as North Korea’s ongoing provocations and climate change.

    Shi, the Chinese expert at Renmin University, sees little room for breakthroughs on these issues.

    “On the issue of Ukraine, China has already made its position clear many times. It will not change simply because of the talks with the US President. On North Korea, since March last year, China has already stopped treating the denuclearization of North Korea as a fundamental element of its Korean Peninsular policy,” he said.

    Nor is his assessment for climate cooperation any rosier. “China and the US can find many common interests on this, but when it comes to how to deal with climate change specifically, it always leads to antagonism on policies and rivalry over ideology and global influence,” Shi said.

    Experts in the US and China say some progress on greater communication and access between the two countries will already be considered a positive outcome – such as restoring suspended climate and military talks.

    “Hopefully the meeting can be used for more than just airing mutual grievances,” said Patricia Kim, a China expert at the Brookings Institution. “For instance, a joint declaration by Biden and Xi that they oppose the threat or use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine and on the Korean Peninsula, as well as a nod to restarting working-level exchanges on areas of common interest such as climate change and counter-narcotics would be promising.”

    Over the decade of their relationship, Biden and Xi have spent dozens of hours together across the US and China.

    During Biden’s getting-to-know-you trip to China in 2011, the two leaders shared a marathon of meetings and meals in Beijing and the southwestern city of Chengdu. They also took a trip deep into the green mountains of Sichuan province to visit a rural high school rebuilt after a deadly earthquake.

    The next year, Xi paid a reciprocal visit to the US at the invitation of Biden, who hosted his Chinese counterpart for dinner at his residency after a series of meetings at the White House, State Department and the Pentagon. Biden also flew to Los Angeles to meet Xi on the last leg of his trip.

    Their in-person encounters continued after Xi took power in 2012. The last time they met face to face was in 2015, during Xi’s first state visit to the US as China’s top leader.

    As relations between their countries plummeted, the once friendly dynamics between the two leaders have also shifted.

    Xi Jinping and Joe Biden, accompanied by their translators, in Chengdu, China, in 2011.

    Xi is an ideological hardliner who believes in China’s return to the center of the world stage and is skeptical – some would say hostile – toward America. Biden, meanwhile, has grown increasingly weary of China’s authoritarian turn under Xi, and has framed the rivalry between the two countries as a battle between autocracy and democracy.

    Last summer, Biden publicly pushed back on being described as an “old friend” of Xi’s.

    “Let’s get something straight. We know each other well; we’re not old friends. It’s just pure business,” he said at the time.

    Given the growing divide, the two-year gap since their last in-person meeting is an extremely long time, Kennedy pointed out.

    “One conversation on the sidelines of a multilateral summit is still insufficient to fully discuss all the key issues that the countries face. And so hopefully, the two sides will facilitate a greater discussion on these issues by many parts of the two governments.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link