ReportWire

Tag: us federal government

  • Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics

    Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Looking at an upcoming Supreme Court term from the vantage point of the first Monday in October rarely tells the full story of what lies ahead, but the docket already includes major cases concerning the intersection between the First Amendment and social media, gun rights, racial gerrymandering and the power of the executive branch when it comes to regulation.

    The court will still determine if it will hear oral arguments on issues such as medication abortion and transgender rights, not to mention the possibility of a flurry of emergency requests related to the 2024 election.

    Here are some of the key cases on which the court will hear oral arguments this term:

    After the Supreme Court issued a major decision last year expanding gun rights nationwide, lower courts began reconsidering hundreds of firearms regulations across the country under the new standard crafted by Justice Clarence Thomas that a gun law passes legal muster only if it is rooted in history and tradition.

    On the heels of that decision, a federal appeals court invalidated a federal law that bars an individual who is subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. That law, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “is an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”

    The Biden administration has appealed, saying the ruling “threatens grave harms for victims of domestic violence.”

    In 2019, nearly two-thirds of domestic homicides in the United States were committed with a gun, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.

    Lawyers for Zackey Rahimi, a man who was prosecuted under the law in 2020 after a violent altercation with his girlfriend, have urged the justices to let the lower court opinion stand, arguing in part that there is no law from the founding era comparable to the statute at hand.

    Racial gerrymandering: South Carolina congressional maps

    Justices will consider a congressional redistricting plan drawn by South Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature in the wake of the 2020 census. Critics say it was designed with discriminatory purpose and amounts to an illegal racial gerrymander.

    The case focuses the court’s attention once again on the issue of race and map drawing and comes after the court ordered Alabama to redraw the state’s congressional map last term to account for the fact that the state is 27% black. The decision, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, surprised liberals who feared the court was going to make it harder for minorities to challenge maps under Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act.

    In the latest case, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a Black voter named Taiwan Scott, are challenging the state’s congressional District 1 that is located along the southeastern coast and is anchored in Charleston County. Although the district consistently elected Republicans from 1980 to 2016, in 2018 a Democrat was elected in a political upset, though a Republican recaptured the seat in 2020.

    The person who devised the map has testified that he was instructed to make the district “more Republican leaning,” but that he did not consider race. He did, however, acknowledge that he examined racial data after drafting each version and that the Black voting age population of the district was likely viewed during the drafting process.

    A three-judge district court panel struck down the plan in January, saying that race had been the predominant motivating factor. “To achieve a target of 17% African American population,” the court said, “Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district.”

    Expert explains why Justice Thomas’ gifts from wealthy friends are problematic

    In the latest attack against the so-called administrative state, the justices are considering whether to overturn decades old precedent to scale back the power of federal agencies, impacting how the government tackles issues such as climate change, immigration, labor conditions and public health.

    At issue is an appeal from herring fishermen in the Atlantic who say the National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the authority to require them to pay the salaries of government monitors who ride aboard the fishing vessels.

    In agreeing to hear the case, the justices signaled they will reconsider a 1984 decision – Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – that sets forward factors to determine when courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of the law. First, they examine a statute to see if Congress’ intent is clear. It if is – then the matter is settled. But if there is ambiguity – the court defers to the agency’s expertise.

    Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices that the agency was acting within the scope of its authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and said the fishermen are not responsible for all the costs. The regulation was put in place to combat overfishing of the fisheries off the coasts of the US.

    Representing the fishermen, former Solicitor General Paul Clement argues that the government exceeded its authority and needs direct and clear congressional authorization to make such a demand. “The ‘net effect’ of Chevron,” Clement said, is that it “incentives a dynamic where Congress does far less than the Framers anticipated, and the executive branch is left to do far more by deciding controversial issues via regulatory fiat”

    For the second time in recent years, the court is taking aim at a watchdog agency created to combat unfair and deceptive practices against consumers, in a case that could deal a fatal blow to the future of the agency and send reverberations throughout the financial services industry.

    At the center of the case at hand is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – an independent agency set up in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown that works to monitor the practices of lenders, debt collectors and credit rating agencies.

    Congress chose to fund the CFPB from outside the annual appropriations process to ensure its independence. As such, the agency receives its funding each year from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System. But the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals held last year that the funding scheme violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, that, the court said “ensures Congress’ “exclusive power over the federal purse.”

    According to the CFPB, the agency has obtained more than $18.9 billion in ordered relief, including restitution and canceled debts, for more than 195 million consumers, and more than $4.1 billion in penalties, in actions brought by the agency against financial institutions and individuals that have broken federal consumer financial protection laws.

    A handful of other agencies have similar funding schemes including the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Three years ago, the Supreme Court limited the independence of the CFPB by invalidating its leadership structure. A 5-4 court held that the structure violated the separation of powers because the president was restricted from removing the director, even if they had policy disagreements.

    Agency regulatory authority: Securities and Exchange Commission

    The justices are looking at the in-house enforcement proceedings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission in another case that invites the conservative majority to pare back the regulatory authority of federal agencies.

    The court’s decision could impact whether the SEC and other agencies can conduct enforcement proceedings in-house, using administrative courts staffed with agency employees, or whether such actions must be brought in federal court.

    On one side are critics of such agency courts who argue that they allow federal employees to serve as prosecutors, judges and jury, issuing rulings that could particularly hurt small businesses. On the other side are those who point out that several agencies, including the Social Security Administration, have such internal proceedings because the topics are often complex and the agency has more expertise than a federal judge.

    The case arose in 2013 after the SEC brought an enforcement action against George Jarkesy, who had established two hedge funds with his advisory firm, Patriot28, for securities fraud.

    The 5th Circuit ruled that the SEC’s proceedings deprive individuals of their Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury. In addition, the court said that Congress had improperly delegated legislative power to the SEC, which gave the agency unconstrained authority at times to choose the in-house administrative proceeding rather than filing suit in district court.

    In December, the court will examine the historic multibillion-dollar Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement with several states that would ultimately offer the Sackler family broad protection from OxyContin-related civil claims.

    Until recently, Purdue was controlled by the Sackler family, who withdrew billions of dollars from the company before it filed for bankruptcy. The family has now agreed to contribute up to $6 billion to Purdue’s reorganization fund on the condition that the Sacklers receive a release from civil liability.

    The Biden administration, representing the US Trustee, the executive branch agency that monitors the administration of bankruptcy cases, has called the plan “exceptional and unprecedented” in court papers, noting that lower courts have divided on when parties can be released from liability for actions that caused societal harm.

    “The plan’s release ‘absolutely, unconditionally, irrevocably, fully, finally, forever and permanently releases’ the Sacklers from every conceivable type of opioid-related civil claim – even claims based on fraud and other forms of willful misconduct that could not be discharged if the Sacklers filed for bankruptcy in their individual capacities,” Prelogar argued in court papers.

    For the second year running, the justices will leap into the online moderation debate and decide whether states can essentially control how social media companies operate.

    If upheld, laws from Florida and Texas could open the door to more state legislation requiring platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok to treat content in specific ways within certain jurisdictions – and potentially expose the companies to more content moderation lawsuits.

    It could also make it harder for platforms to remove what they determine is misinformation, hate speech or other offensive material.

    “These cases could completely reshape the digital public sphere. The question of what limits the First Amendment imposes on legislatures’ ability to regulate social media is immensely important – for speech, and for democracy as well,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, in a statement.

    “It’s difficult to think of any other recent First Amendment cases in which the stakes were so high,” Jaffer added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans must overcome deep splits to choose a speaker as Israel crisis exposes failure to govern | CNN Politics

    Republicans must overcome deep splits to choose a speaker as Israel crisis exposes failure to govern | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Republicans must mend gaping splits in their conference if they are to succeed in picking a new speaker – as dangerous global crises in Israel and Ukraine expose the steep cost of their malfunctioning majority.

    The two declared candidates, Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, must demonstrate their capacity to either control or co-opt hardliners who ousted Kevin McCarthy last week and are making the United States look like an ebbing superpower that cannot govern itself – let alone lead a world in turmoil.

    Republicans on Wednesday are meeting for internal secret ballot elections to determine who will become their nominee to be second in line to the presidency. But the gravity of outside events is apparently doing little to shake the GOP out of its endless internal conflict because serious doubts remain over whether either Scalise or Jordan can win the necessary overwhelming support of the Republican conference in an eventual floor vote of the full House.

    The House GOP already looked deeply negligent with time running out to stave off another government shutdown drama by the middle of next month. But if the House remains paralyzed much longer it will undermine the country’s capacity to respond to the horrific Hamas assault on Israel. And Ukraine’s battle to survive as a sovereign state will soon reach a critical point if its next aid package doesn’t make it through the House.

    Republican lawmakers met Tuesday night as Jordan and Scalise made their pitches. The situation is so fraught because the tiny House GOP majority means that a candidate for speaker can only lose four Republican votes and still win the gavel in a full House vote. Democrats refused to save McCarthy from a revolt by eight hardliners last week and on Tuesday named their leader, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, as candidate for speaker, suggesting they will sit on the sidelines again, content to expose the dysfunction in the GOP ahead of next year’s election.

    Rep. David Valadao, a California Republican who faces a tough reelection fight, said it could be difficult for either Scalise or Jordan to win outright. “I think both candidates are going to struggle. … But I don’t know exactly where their numbers are,” Valadao said. “It seems like they are both scrambling and they’re both working hard. So I don’t know if anyone is super confident right now.”

    The faces are different but the GOP fault line remains the same

    A week on from McCarthy’s rejection, after less than nine months as speaker, the fundamental fault line in the party remains as glaring as ever. Far-right Republicans have demands for massive spending cuts but fail to acknowledge that Democratic control of the Senate and the White House means that GOP leaders have no choice but to eventually compromise. McCarthy fell after using Democratic votes to pass a stopgap bill to keep the government open, fearing that Republicans would pay a harsh political price for a shutdown that could, over time, affect millions of Americans.

    The key question on Wednesday will be whether Scalise or Jordan can unite enough of the party behind them before a full floor vote, which could happen as soon as later that day. Republicans are conducting the initial process behind closed doors to avoid a repeat of the public demonstration of disarray that unfolded during the 15 rounds of balloting McCarthy required to win the top job in January. They’ll be debating and voting on a proposed change to conference rules to raise the threshold for winning the nomination – from a simple majority of the conference to a majority of the current House – as part of their effort to avoid January’s theatrics. Both Jordan and Scalise committed to supporting one another if they become the nominee, lawmakers said after Tuesday’s candidate forum.

    Rep. Mike Garcia of California warned after the forum that the fate of the speakership was still up in the air. “I think it’s 50/50 odds right now,” he said. Some of his colleagues were even more pessimistic. Rep. Kat Cammack of Florida said, “No one is close to 217.” Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who is backing Jordan, was asked the chances of a new speaker being selected Wednesday and replied: “I’d put it at 2%.”

    Jordan, a vehement supporter of Donald Trump who’s echoed his false claims of election fraud in 2020, has the former president’s backing. The Ohio Republican, who was a co-founder of the conservative Freedom Caucus, has devoted his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee to trying to prove Trump’s accusations that the government has been weaponized against him as he faces four criminal trials and is also a leading figure in the impeachment probe into President Joe Biden.

    Jordan said he had a plan to head off a new government funding cliff-hanger, but he’d have to reconcile the demands of right-wingers and also get such a measure through the Senate and the White House. “Nobody wants a shutdown,” Jordan said. Several lawmakers in the meeting said the Judiciary chairman said he’d pitch for a long-term stopgap plan that cut spending by 1% to allow time for passing individual spending bills.

    Rep. Don Bacon, a key moderate from Nebraska who is leaning Scalise’s way, suggested he was pleasantly surprised by Jordan’s argument. “Because of his past, I think we expected to hear the Freedom Caucus message. It was not that. It was very pragmatic,” Bacon said Tuesday.

    Scalise is also an authentic conservative and vocal supporter of Trump. (Both men voted against certifying Biden’s win in 2020.) But he’s known as less of a flamethrower than Jordan. And as a member of leadership with fundraising bona fides, he could be more palatable to moderate Republican lawmakers in more than a dozen districts that paved the way to the narrow GOP majority in last year’s midterms and that will be critical to its hopes in 2024. The Louisianan emerged from the meeting Tuesday evening warning that the country needed a Congress that can work. “What people have really liked about my approach is I’ve been a unifier,” he said, though such skills would face an extreme test if he wins the gavel.

    If neither Scalise nor Jordan is able to win sufficient support, there could be an opening for a compromise candidate that all wings of the party could get behind. Some freshmen have been pushing for a return of McCarthy. But the former speaker asked that he not be nominated in the race – without closing the door to getting his job back.

    “There are two people running in there. I’m not one of them,” the California Republican told CNN’s Manu Raju.

    Even if a new speaker does emerge on Wednesday, they will face the same relentless pressure imposed by a tiny majority, the split balance of power in Washington and a GOP that has riotously resisted the efforts of the last three Republican speakers to unify the conference and provide long-term governance.

    Most immediately, the victor will have to decide whether to try to amend the rule that any one member can call a vote to oust the speaker – a concession McCarthy had offered to hardliners in order to win the gavel in January. Then, looming a few weeks away, is a possible repeat of the crisis that led to McCarthy’s defeat and the current power vacuum in the House. Unless Congress passes more funding by November 17, the government will close down, creating a series of adverse consequences, including the possibility that troops go unpaid and public services are severely disrupted.

    To avoid this scenario, the House will either have to pass a series of complex spending bills in a month – a near impossibility given their size and the time wasted on the speaker’s race – or opt for another short-term spending patch that significant numbers of Republicans may oppose. Even if the House can manage to pass a spending plan, any measure acceptable to the entire House GOP is unlikely to win support in the Senate or the White House since hardliners are demanding cuts far below those previously agreed to by McCarthy and Biden earlier this year.

    A Speaker Scalise or Speaker Jordan – or whoever can get the job – would almost certainly have to make the same fateful choice that faced McCarthy. Do they shut down the government if they can’t jam concessions out of the White House or Senate? Or seek to punt the choice down the road with a temporary funding bill that will probably need Democratic votes to pass? Jordan’s approach that calls for 1% spending cuts would likely be a non-starter among Democrats, meaning he would need to convince moderate Republicans it was in their interests.

    The House must also soon wrestle with the president’s request for more than $20 billion in military aid to Ukraine as it fights the Russian invasion. Many Republicans oppose additional funding, and it’s another measure that would need Democratic votes to get through the House. The question has become even more complicated following the attack on Israel, with some Republicans arguing that the US should send the Jewish state as much help as it wants while being reluctant to continue propping up the Ukrainian war effort.

    Such is the complexity of the untamed nature of the GOP majority that further turmoil certainly lies ahead, even if Republicans somehow settle on a new speaker on Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal court strikes down Alabama congressional map after legislature snubbed Supreme Court | CNN Politics

    Federal court strikes down Alabama congressional map after legislature snubbed Supreme Court | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal court blocked a newly drawn Alabama congressional map on Tuesday because it didn’t create a second majority-Black district as the Supreme Court had ordered earlier this year.

    In a unanimous decision from a three-judge panel, which had overseen the case before it reached the Supreme Court, the judges wrote that they were “disturbed” by Alabama’s actions in the case.

    The state had snubbed the Supreme Court’s order – a surprise 5-4 decision in June – that the maps should be redrawn. White voters currently make up the majority in six of the state’s seven congressional districts, although 27% of the state’s population is Black.

    “We are deeply troubled that the State enacted a map that the State readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires,” wrote the judges, two of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump.

    Alabama officials on Tuesday filed notice that they are appealing the ruling.

    “While we are disappointed in today’s decision, we strongly believe that the Legislature’s map complies with the Voting Rights Act and the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court,” the office of Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall said in a statement. “We intend to promptly seek review from the Supreme Court to ensure that the State can use its lawful congressional districts in 2024 and beyond.”

    Alabama officials also asked the three-judge court to freeze its opinion invalidating the congressional map but said they will formally ask the Supreme Court for a stay on Thursday.

    This redistricting battle – and separate, pending litigation over congressional maps in states such as Georgia and Florida – could determine which party controls the US House of Representatives after next year’s elections. Republicans currently hold a razor-thin majority in the chamber.

    The three federal judges overseeing the Alabama case on Tuesday ordered a special master to submit three proposed maps that would create a second Black-majority district by September 25.

    The panel wrote that it was “not aware of any other case” in which a state legislature had responded to being ordered to a draw map with a second majority-minority district by creating one that the state itself admitted didn’t create the required district.

    “The law requires the creation of an additional district that affords Black Alabamians, like everyone else, a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice,” and Alabama’s new map, they wrote, “plainly fails to do so.”

    JaTaune Bosby Gilchrist, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, which has been fighting the case, praised the ruling: “Elected officials ignored their responsibilities and chose to violate our democracy. We hope the court’s special master helps steward a process that ensures a fair map that Black Alabamians and our state deserve.”

    This summer, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, had affirmed an earlier decision by the three-judge panel and ordered the state to redraw congressional maps to include a second majority-Black district or “something quite close to it.”

    The Supreme Court’s surprise decision in Alabama – coming after the right-leaning high court has chipped away at other parts of the Voting Rights Act in recent years – has given fresh hope to voting rights activists and Democrats that they could prevail in challenges to other maps they view as discriminating against minorities.

    But the new map approved by Alabama’s Republican-dominated legislature – and signed into law by GOP Gov. Kay Ivey – in July created only one majority-Black district and boosted the share of Black voters in a second district from roughly 30% to nearly 40%.

    The pending cases center on whether GOP state legislators drew congressional maps after the 2020 census that weakened the power of Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act.

    Republicans control all statewide offices in Alabama and all but one congressional seat. The single Black-majority congressional district is represented by Democratic Rep. Terri Sewell, the state’s first Black woman elected to Congress.

    Alabama officials have argued that the map as redrawn by state lawmakers was aimed at maintaining traditional guidelines for congressional redistricting, such as keeping together communities of interest. And they have signaled that they hope to sway one of the Supreme Court justices who sided with the majority in June.

    The state’s briefs before the three-judge panel referenced a concurring opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh – one of the two conservatives who sided with the liberal justices on the high court to vote against the original Alabama map – that questioned whether “race-based redistricting” can “extend indefinitely into the future.”

    The lower-court judges weren’t convinced by the state’s arguments.

    They wrote that after reviewing the concurrence, as well as a part of the Supreme Court’s ruling which Kavanaugh didn’t join, “We do not understand either of those writings as undermining any aspect of the Supreme Court’s affirmance; if they did, the Court would not have affirmed the injunction.”

    The judges also rejected Alabama’s argument that drawing a second Black-majority district would unconstitutionally constitute “affirmative action in redistricting.”

    “Unlike affirmative action in the admissions programs the Supreme Court analyzed in [this year’s affirmative action case], which was expressly aimed at achieving balanced racial outcomes in the makeup of the universities’ student bodies, the Voting Rights Act guarantees only ‘equality of opportunity, not a guarantee of electoral success for minority-preferred candidates of whatever race,’” the panel wrote.

    “The Voting Rights Act does not provide a leg up for Black voters – it merely prevents them from being kept down with regard to what is arguably the most ‘fundamental political right,’ in that it is ‘preservative of all rights’ – the right to vote.”

    Earlier, in a letter to state lawmakers, Marshall had argued that a separate Supreme Court ruling in June – after the high court’s Alabama redistricting decision came down – that ended affirmative action in college admissions meant that using a map in which “race predominates” would open up the state to claims that it was violating the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Huawei wants to go all in on AI for the next decade | CNN Business

    Huawei wants to go all in on AI for the next decade | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: Sign up for CNN’s Meanwhile in China newsletter which explores what you need to know about the country’s rise and how it impacts the world.


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    Huawei has joined the list of companies that want to be all about artificial intelligence.

    For the first time in about 10 years, the Chinese tech and telecoms giant announced its new strategic direction on Wednesday, saying it would shift its focus to AI. Previously, the company had prioritized cloud computing and intellectual property, respectively, over two decade-long periods.

    Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s rotating chairwoman and chief financial officer, made the announcement in Shanghai during a company event.

    “As artificial intelligence gains steam, and its impact on industry continues to grow, Huawei’s All Intelligence strategy is designed to help all industries make the most of new strategic opportunities,” the company said in a statement.

    Meng said in a speech that Huawei was “committed to building a solid computing backbone for China — and another option for the world.”

    “Our end goal is to help meet the diverse AI computing needs of different industries,” she added, without providing details.

    Huawei’s decision follows a similar move by fellow Chinese tech giant Alibaba (BABA), announced earlier this month, to prioritize AI.

    Other companies, such as Japan’s SoftBank, have also long declared an intent to focus more on the fast-moving technology, and more businesses have jumped on the bandwagon this year due to excitement about platforms such as GPT-4.

    Meng returned to China in September 2021 after spending nearly three years under house arrest in Canada as part of an extradition battle with the United States. She and Huawei had been charged for alleged bank fraud and evasion of economic sanctions against Iran.

    The executive, who is also the daughter of Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei, was able to leave after reaching an agreement with the US Department of Justice and ultimately having her charges dismissed.

    Meng began her role as the rotating chairperson of the company in April and is expected to stay in the position for six months.

    News of Huawei’s strategic update came the same day the company was mentioned in allegations lodged by China against the United States.

    In a statement posted Wednesday on Chinese social network WeChat, China’s Ministry of State Security accused Washington of infiltrating Huawei servers nearly 15 years ago.

    “With its powerful arsenal of cyberattacks, the United States intelligence services have carried out surveillance, theft of secrets and cyberattacks against many countries around the world, including China, in a variety of ways,” the ministry said.

    It alleged that the US National Security Agency (NSA), in particular, had “repeatedly conducted systematic and platform-based attacks on China in an attempt to steal China’s important data resources.”

    Huawei declined to comment on the allegations, while the NSA did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside regular US business hours.

    The claims are especially notable because US officials have long suspected the company of spying on the networks that its technology operates, using it as grounds to restrict trade with the company. Huawei has vehemently denied the claims, saying it operates independently of the Chinese government.

    In 2019, Huawei was added to the US “entity list,” which restricts exports to select organizations without a US government license. The following year, the US government expanded on those curbs by seeking to cut Huawei off from chip suppliers that use US technology.

    In recent weeks, Huawei has added to US-China tensions again after launching a new smartphone that represents an apparent technological breakthrough.

    Huawei launched the Mate 60 Pro, its latest flagship device, last month, prompting a US investigation. Analysts who have examined the phone have said it includes a 5G chip, suggesting Huawei may have found a way to overcome American export controls.

    — Mengchen Zhang contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden teases forthcoming executive order on AI | CNN Business

    Biden teases forthcoming executive order on AI | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The White House plans to introduce a highly anticipated executive order in the coming weeks dealing with artificial intelligence, President Joe Biden said Wednesday.

    “This fall, I’m going to take executive action, and my administration is going to continue to work with bipartisan legislation,” Biden said, “so America leads the way toward responsible AI innovation.”

    Biden offered no details on the contents of the coming order, which the White House had first announced in July. But his remarks offer greater insight into his administration’s timing.

    Biden’s signing of the order would build on an earlier administration proposal for an “AI Bill of Rights.” Civil society groups have urged the Biden administration to require federal agencies to implement the AI Bill of Rights as part of any executive order on the technology. Meanwhile, the US Senate is continuing to educate lawmakers on artificial intelligence in preparation for months of legislative work on the issue.

    In Wednesday’s remarks during a meeting of the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Biden described the recent conversations he’s had with AI leaders and experts.

    “Vast differences exist among them in terms of what potential it has, what dangers there are, and so, I have a keen interest in AI,” Biden said. “I’ve convened key experts on how to harness the power of artificial intelligence for good while protecting people from the profound risk it also presents.”

    “We can’t kid ourselves,” Biden continued. “[There is] profound risk if we don’t do it well.”

    Biden reiterated the United States’ commitment to working with international partners including the United Kingdom on developing safeguards for artificial intelligence.

    The meeting also saw presidential advisers showcasing to Biden several use cases for artificial intelligence. Maria Zuber, the panel’s co-chair, said the examples Biden would see during the meeting would include the use of AI to predict extreme weather linked to climate change; to “create materials that have properties we’ve never been able to create before”; and to “understand the origins of the universe, which is literally as big as it gets.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Conservative justices suggest South Carolina GOP gerrymandering was based on politics, not race | CNN Politics

    Conservative justices suggest South Carolina GOP gerrymandering was based on politics, not race | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court’s conservatives expressed doubt at oral arguments Wednesday that South Carolina GOP lawmakers engaged in impermissible racial gerrymandering when they redrew congressional lines for a House seat to benefit Republicans.

    The case is one of several racial and political gerrymandering-related lawsuits that could impact which party controls the House after next year’s congressional elections.

    The district at issue was reworked in 2020 to benefit the GOP and current incumbent, Rep. Nancy Mace – one of the eight Republicans who voted to oust Kevin McCarthy as House speaker last week.

    The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a Black voter named Taiwan Scott say the use of race dominated the decision-making process and that the state worked to intentionally dilute the power of Black voters. A federal court agreed, referring to the revised map as “bleaching.”

    Several of the conservative justices on Wednesday suggested that map drawers had taken politics into consideration, not race.

    Chief Justice John Roberts said those challenging the map had “no direct” evidence that race had predominated in the decisionmaking process. He said that there were no “odd-shaped” districts drawn and that there existed a “wealth of political data” that would justify the chosen boundaries. He said the challengers had only presented “circumstantial evidence” and suggested the court would be “breaking new ground” in its voting jurisprudence if it were to side with them.

    Justice Samuel Alito repeatedly suggested that a lower court had made serious legal error in invalidating the map by relying upon erroneous expert testimony. He said the Supreme Court could not “rubber-stamp” the district court’s finding and he noted that the individual charged with drawing the maps had years of experience and had worked for both Democrats and Republicans.

    Alito contended that there was “nothing suspicious” if a map drawer is aware of race as long as it is not a predominant factor when drawing lines.

    Justice Neil Gorsuch said there was “no evidence ” that the legislature could have achieved its “partisan tile in any other way.”

    For their part, the liberals on the court suggested that the Republican-controlled South Carolina Legislature adopted the maps by considering race as a predominant factor, in violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that Republicans were launching “pot shots” at the experts who claimed the maps could only be explained by race. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that the challengers are not required to produce a “smoking gun” to prove their point.

    The dispute comes as the justices this year ordered Alabama to redraw its congressional map to account for the states’ 27% Black voting population. That decision, penned by Roberts, came as a welcome relief to liberals who feared that the court was poised to make it harder for minorities to challenge maps under Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act. A federal court approved a new map last week that significantly boosts the Black population in a second district, which could lead to the pickup of a Democratic seat next year.

    The South Carolina case raises different questions rooted in the Constitution concerning when a state crosses the line between permissible partisan goals and illegal racial discrimination.

    The state chapter of the NAACP and Scott are challenging the state’s 1st Congressional District, located along the southeastern coast and anchored in Charleston County. Although the district consistently elected Republicans from 1980 to 2016, in 2018 a Democrat was elected in a political upset.

    Two years later a Republican candidate, Mace, regained the seat in a close race. When the state House and Senate began considering congressional reapportionment in 2021, the Republican majorities sought to create a stronger GOP tilt in the district, one of seven in the state. A new map could make the seat more competitive.

    After an eight-day trial featuring 42 witnesses and 652 exhibits, a three-judge district court panel in January held that District 1 amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because race was the predominant factor in the district’s reapportionment plan.

    “To achieve a target of 17% African American population,” the court said, “Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district.” The court referred at one point to the “bleaching” of Black voters out of the Charleston County portion of the district.

    “State legislators are free to consider a broad array of factors in the design of a legislative district, including partisanship, but they may not use race as a predominant factor and may not use partisanship as a proxy for race,” the court concluded.

    South Carolina Republicans, led by state Senate President Thomas Alexander, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the maps had not been drawn impermissibly based on race, but instead with politics in mind.

    The person who devised the map testified in federal court that he was instructed to make the district “more Republican leaning,” but that he did not consider race while drawing the lines. He did, however, acknowledge that he examined racial data after drafting each version and that the Black voting-age population of the district was viewed during the drafting process.

    “If left uncorrected, the panel’s holding would place States in an impossible bind by exposing them to potential racial gerrymandering liability whenever they decline to make majority-white, modestly-majority Republican districts majority-Democratic,” argued John Gore, a lawyer for the Republicans.

    Mace filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the high court in support of the Republicans, charging that the lower court “ignored one of the most important traditional districting principles – the preservation of the core of existing districts.”

    Joined by other GOP members of Congress from South Carolina, Mace argued that constituent services, voter education and the seniority of long-serving members of the House are “vital interests” and that the lower court was “bent on destroying the legislatures’ duly enacted and carefully negotiated map.”

    Lawyers for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund told the justices in court papers that the state impermissibly used race as a predominant factor when drawing the district.

    “Using race as the predominant means to sort voters is unconstitutional even if done for partisan goals,” they argued.

    They said the lower court made clear that the state “intentionally exiled more than 30,000 Black Charlestonians from CD1 predominately because of their race.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What judicial ethics rules say about Clarence Thomas’ lifestyle bankrolled by his friends | CNN Politics

    What judicial ethics rules say about Clarence Thomas’ lifestyle bankrolled by his friends | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    It’s undeniable that Justice Clarence Thomas’ friendships with billionaires willing to foot his bill on their vacations together have given the conservative jurist a lifestyle most Americans could only dream of.

    But determining whether Thomas violated ethics rules and laws by failing to disclose that hospitality is tricky.

    The law in question is the Ethics in Government Act, and how it should be applied to the extravagant travel that Thomas and other justices have been treated to has been a subject of debate.

    The debate centers on what counts as “personal hospitality” – i.e., accommodations and entertainment that judges are treated to personally by their friends – which does not have to be reported on annual financial disclosures under certain contexts.

    The Supreme Court’s critics note that, even if Thomas was not technically in violation of the rules, his pattern of accepting – and not reporting – lavish experiences such as skybox tickets to major sporting events and far-flung trips on mega-yachts shows that the high court cannot be trusted to police itself under the current standards. Some argue that more stringent ethical reforms – perhaps in the form of legislation – are needed.

    Further complicating the picture is that the regulations laying out when personal hospitality need not be reported have recently been tightened. Thomas’ defenders have pointed to those changes, announced earlier this year, to argue that the old regime did not require the justice to report the types of hospitality now under scrutiny. Thomas himself – in a rare statement released in April, when ProPublica published its first investigation into the extravagant travel perks he has received – noted that reworked ethical guidance and vowed to follow it going forward.

    But assessing whether the gifts and hospitality described in the latest ProPublica report – which puts the tally at 38 destination vacations, 26 private jet flights, eight helicopter trips and a dozen VIP tickets to sporting events – would require disclosure, either then or under the tightened rules, is a complicated question. It sometimes depends on details about how the high-end trips were financed that were not fully fleshed out by the report.

    “The question is: Who is absorbing the cost?” said Stephen Gillers, a New York University School of Law professor who has written extensively about legal ethics and rules.

    Thomas is not the only justice who has engaged in such jet-setting. When Justice Samuel Alito was the subject of a ProPublica report detailing a 2008 private flight he took to Alaska on a plane owned by a GOP megadonor, he argued in a preemptive essay published by Wall Street Journal’s opinion section that he was not required to disclose it under ethics rules in place at the time. Alito claimed that plane trip fit the definition of “facility” in the requirements’ exemptions for personal hospitality extended to judges “on property or facilities owned by (a) person”

    Ethics experts have pushed back on the idea that a private flight could be interpreted to fall under the term “facility.” The new guidance announced in March makes clear that going forward, private plane trips cannot be excluded from the reporting requirements because “substitutes for commercial transportation” are not part of the exemptions.

    ProPublica’s latest report, published Thursday, surfaces several helicopter trips that Thomas took apparently at the expense of his billionaire benefactors. Even under the new guidance, there could be some argument that certain helicopter trips may not require disclosure, according to Gillers, who gave the example of a helicopter ride over the Grand Canyon.

    Since such a ride would not be a replacement of a commercial flight, but instead a form of entertainment offered by a friend, disclosure could potentially be avoided. But another key question, under the new guidance, is whether the helicopter ride was being paid for personally by the friend of the judge.

    The new guidance states that accommodations offered to a judge that are not paid for out of the personal pocketbook of an individual – but through a third-party entity, which could include the friend’s company or another business – would require disclosure. If the person footing the cost is seeking a tax deduction for the expense of the accommodation or gift, that would also trigger a judge’s reporting requirement.

    Justice Roberts wrote ‘condescending’ letter to Senate when asked to testify about ethics

    That means if the helicopter rides described in the ProPublica report – which Thomas occasionally enjoyed in the mid-2000s because of his friendship with the late corporate titan Wayne Huizenga – were on a helicopter owned by Huizenga’s business, Thomas would have to disclose them under the new rules. Even if Huizenga owned the helicopter personally, if he put the cost of the rides toward a tax exemption, that would also mean Thomas’ helicopter jaunts would fall outside of the exemptions.

    Thomas’ friendships with oil baron Paul “Tony” Novelly and real estate mogul Harlan Crow have led to the billionaires hosting him on their mega-yachts. Those trips have included ventures with Novelly in the Bahamas and island-hopping with Crow in Indonesia. Since Thomas presumably was sleeping on the yachts, he can argue they’re covered by the disclosure exception for accommodations personally offered by friends.

    “Thomas could say that, just as a weekend at a country home at the invitation of a friend is personal hospitality, a week on my friend’s yacht is also personal hospitality. It’s just that one is on the land and one is on the water,” Gillers said.

    Another area of scrutiny in the new ProPublica report is tickets to major sporting events – often for skybox seats – that Thomas received from his wealthy friends. Government ethics experts quoted in the story raised the disclosure requirement for gifts valued at more than $415 as potentially problematic for Thomas.

    However, according to Gabe Roth, who heads the organization Fix the Court, the ethics questions over the tickets hinge more on the entertainment exemption for judges when they are receiving personal hospitality.

    “You could make the argument that sporting tickets count as entertainment,” said Roth, whose group advocates for ethics reform and more transparency in the judiciary.

    Thomas is not the only justice who has failed to report sporting event tickets on their disclosures. Justice Elena Kagan attended a University of Wisconsin football game – sitting in the Chancellor’s Box – in 2017 that went unreported on her disclosure for that year, according to a Fix the Court review.

    Still, ProPublica points to the example of 60 lower court judges who reported sporting event tickets on their annual forms between 2003 and 2019.

    It is a particularly complicated endeavor to decipher Thomas’ reporting obligations for the access he reportedly got, via his friendship with Huizenga, to an exclusive Florida golf course. The report describes a “standing invitation” Thomas had to the members-only course, the Floridian, but ProPublica said it was not clear whether Thomas was granted a full-fledged membership or whether he was just able to visit the course as a guest of Huizenga.

    However, there are signs pointing toward disclosure for judges who do receive gifted golf club memberships. In his filing for 2008, Chief Justice John Roberts reported honorary memberships to two golf courses – valued in the thousands of dollars – that he was gifted, while even noting in the disclosure forms that he didn’t use the memberships.

    “If that’s John Roberts’ interpretation of the federal disclosure law, I am going to side with him on this,” Roth said.

    The latest investigation into Thomas’ conduct also hit on an issue that has emerged around several of the justices: whether their activity with certain charities and other organizations violates ethical standards limiting judges’ participation in fundraising.

    ProPublica, piggybacking off recent reporting by The New York Times, dug into Thomas’ involvement with the Horatio Alger Association, which offers scholarships and mentorships to students, and which connected Thomas to some of the billionaire benefactors highlighted in the report.

    Thomas, according to The Times and ProPublica, facilitated events for the organization that were hosted at the Supreme Court, with the latest investigation reporting that access to one such event cost $1,500 or more in contributions per person.

    Under a set of ethics rules for the judiciary that are separate from the financial disclosure requirements, judges are barred from allowing the “prestige” of their office to be used for the purpose of fundraising.

    “You can attend an event of an organization, a non-profit that serves as a fundraiser,” Gillers said. “But the justice or judge cannot be identified as an attraction for people to come and donate money.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden announces Michael Whitaker as FAA pick | CNN Politics

    Biden announces Michael Whitaker as FAA pick | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden intends to nominate Michael Whitaker as administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the White House announced Thursday.

    Whitaker has previously served as deputy administrator of the agency and is “currently the chief operating officer of Supernal, a Hyundai Motor Group company designing an electric advanced air mobility (AAM) vehicle,” the White House said in a statement.

    He also worked at InterGlobe Enterprises, an Indian travel conglomerate, as well as United Airlines and Trans World Airlines. Whitaker is a private pilot and holds a law degree, according to the White House.

    The nomination comes as Congress is scrambling to reauthorize funding for the FAA.

    Biden’s previous pick to lead the agency, Phil Washington, withdrew his nomination in March amid strong criticism from Republican lawmakers over a number of issues, including his slim aviation credentials and his potential legal entanglements. The White House also didn’t have the support of enough Democrats to move Washington’s nomination out of committee.

    A top union representing flight attendants praised the pick and called for a swift confirmation.

    “We congratulate Mike Whitaker on his nomination for FAA Administrator. We support the President’s decision and call on the Senate to move to swift confirmation,” Association of Flight Attendants-CWA President Sara Nelson said in a statement.

    United Airlines also praised the move, highlighting Whitaker’s experience, in which he spent 15 years at the airline in a variety of roles.

    “Now more than ever, the FAA needs strong leadership. We are pleased that Michael Whitaker has been nominated for this critical role and look forward to working with him to improve our aviation system for our employees and customers. Mike has deep aviation expertise and a solid reputation as a problem solver. We urge the U.S. Senate to move swiftly on his confirmation process,” United Airlines spokesperson Sam Coleman said in a statement.

    The last Senate-confirmed administrator, Steve Dickson, stepped down in March 2022. Polly Trottenberg, the deputy secretary of the Department of Transportation, has been leading the FAA in an acting capacity since June.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What could happen if the government shuts down | CNN Politics

    What could happen if the government shuts down | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The prospect of a US government shutdown grows more likely with each passing day as lawmakers have yet to reach a deal to extend funding past a critical deadline at the end of the month.

    Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle are hoping to pass a short-term funding extension to keep the lights on and avert a shutdown. But it’s not at all clear that plan will succeed amid deep divisions over spending between the two parties and policy disagreements over issues such as aid to Ukraine.

    Here’s what to know if the government shuts down and what’s driving the current state of play:

    Government funding expires at the end of the day on Saturday, September 30 when the clock strikes midnight and it becomes October 1, which marks the start of the new fiscal year. (As shorthand, the deadline is commonly described as September 30 at midnight.)

    If Congress fails to pass legislation to renew funding by that deadline, then the federal government will shut down at midnight. Since that would take place over the weekend, the full effects of a shutdown wouldn’t be seen until the start of the work week on Monday.

    In the event of a shutdown, many government operations would come to a halt, but some services deemed “essential” would continue.

    Federal agencies have contingency plans that serve as a roadmap for what will continue and what will stop. For now, agencies still have time to review and update plans and it’s not possible to predict exactly how government operations would be impacted if a shutdown were to take place at the end of the month.

    Government operations and services that continue during a shutdown are activities deemed necessary to protect public safety and national security or considered critical for other reasons. Examples of services that have continued during past shutdowns include border protection, federal law enforcement and air traffic control.

    Federal employees whose work is deemed “non-essential” would be put on furlough, which means that they would not work and would not receive pay during the shutdown. Employees whose jobs are deemed “essential” would continue to work, but they too would not be paid during the shutdown.

    Once a shutdown is over, federal employees who were required to work and those who were furloughed will receive backpay.

    In the past, backpay for furloughed employees was not guaranteed, though Congress could and did act to ensure those workers were compensated for lost wages once a shutdown ended. Now, however, backpay for furloughed workers is automatically guaranteed as a result of legislation led by Sen. Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, that was enacted in 2019. Employees deemed “essential” and required to work were already guaranteed backpay after a shutdown prior to the passage of that legislation.

    And federal employees aren’t the only ones who can feel the effects of a shutdown.

    During past shutdowns, national parks have become a major focal point of attention. Although National Park Service sites across the country have been closed during previous government shutdowns, many remained open but severely understaffed under the Trump administration during a shutdown in 2019. Some park sites operated for weeks without park service-provided visitor services such as restrooms, trash collection, facilities or road maintenance.

    “If you’re a government worker, it’s highly disruptive – whether you’re not going to work or whether you are,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. “If you’re somebody who wants to use one of the services that you can’t get access to … it’s highly disruptive. But for many people … all the things that they are expecting and used to seeing of government are still happening and the inconveniences and the kind of wasted time and wasted resources aren’t things that they see and feel directly.”

    There is a deep divide between the House and Senate right now over the effort to reach consensus on and pass full-year spending legislation as House conservative hardliners push for deep spending cuts and controversial policy add-ons that Democrats as well as some Republicans have rejected as too extreme.

    With the funding deadline looming, top lawmakers from both parties hope to pass a short-term funding extension known on Capitol Hill as a continuing resolution or CR for short. These short-term measures are frequently used as a stopgap solution to avert a shutdown and buy more time to try to reach a broader full-year funding deal.

    It’s not clear, however, whether there will be enough consensus to pass even a short-term funding bill out of both chambers before the end of the month as House conservatives rail against the possibility of a stopgap bill and have threatened to vote against one while demanding major policy concessions that have no chance of passing the Senate.

    A fight over aid to Ukraine could also take center stage and further complicate efforts to pass a short-term bill.

    Senate Democrats and Republicans strongly support additional aid to Ukraine, which could be included as part of a stopgap bill, but many House Republicans are reluctant to continue sending aid and do not want to see that attached to a short-term funding bill.

    The White House issued a stark warning this week that a shutdown could threaten crucial federal programs.

    In its warning, the White House estimated 10,000 children would lose access to Head Start programs across the country as the Department of Health and Human Services is prevented from awarding grants during a shutdown, while air traffic controllers and TSA officers would have to work without pay, threatening travel delays across the country. A shutdown would also delay food safety inspections under the Food and Drug Administration.

    “These consequences are real and avoidable – but only if House Republicans stop playing political games with peoples’ lives and catering to the ideological demands of their most extreme, far-right members,” the White House said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US increases pressure on Ukraine to do more to counter corruption | CNN Politics

    US increases pressure on Ukraine to do more to counter corruption | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The US is increasingly urging Ukraine to do more to combat governmental corruption, issuing several notices to Kyiv in the last few weeks indicating that certain kinds of US economic aid will be linked to Ukraine’s progress in reforming its institutions, multiple US officials told CNN.

    The Biden administration’s commitment to supporting Ukraine’s military remains undiminished. But officials have made clear recently that other forms of US aid are potentially in jeopardy if Ukraine does not do more to address corruption.

    Congress has not yet approved the administration’s request for $24 billion in additional funding for Ukraine, with some Republicans wary of providing so much money without robust oversight and conditions attached.

    “The message to the Ukrainians has always been that if any of these funds are misappropriated, then it jeopardizes all US aid to the country,” one US official familiar with the efforts told CNN.

    The State Department issued a formal diplomatic note, also known as a demarche, to Ukraine in late summer that said the US expects Ukraine to continue pursuing various anti-corruption and financial transparency efforts in order to keep receiving direct budget support, three officials familiar with the matter told CNN. The demarche has not been previously reported.

    The US has provided Ukraine with over $23 billion in direct budget support since the war began, according to the Congressional Research Service. This money is separate from military aid and allows Ukraine to continue providing essential services to its citizens like emergency first responders, health care, and education. It is disbursed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the World Bank to the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance.

    The demarche also emphasized the need for Ukraine to implement critical reforms under Ukraine’s International Monetary Fund program, including those related to anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT), a source familiar with the matter said.

    In a statement to CNN, the Ukrainian embassy in Washington said that Ukraine has moved “ambitiously” to pass reforms, including on its IMF program.

    “We have conducted these reforms initiated by Ukraine with the help and support from the US, EU and other friends,” the statement says. “And their practical support to our Cabinet of ministers as well as our (National Bank of Ukraine), General Prosecutors office and anticorruption agencies is appreciated and valued…In all our obligations with IMF, EU and other international donors as well as USA, Ukraine delivers on this front.”

    The administration has been public about its desire to help Ukraine fight corruption throughout its war with Russia. But private diplomatic discussions about the issue have ramped up in recent weeks, as questions have swirled about whether Congress will approve the administration’s funding request for Ukraine.

    National Security adviser Jake Sullivan met with a delegation of Ukrainian anti-corruption officials to discuss their efforts just last month, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken discussed the issue with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky while in Kyiv in early September, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said on Monday.

    Asked by CNN about the US push to get Ukraine to tackle corruption, Miller said that he would not detail “specific conversations, other than to say that it continues to be a high priority for us that we raise with our Ukrainian counterparts, and it continues to be a priority for Ukraine. And we have seen them take action in response to specific requests that we have made as recently as the past few weeks.”

    Separately, the White House has drafted a list of reforms Ukraine should implement in order to continue receiving US financial assistance and move toward integrating into Europe.

    The draft, first reported by Ukrainska Pravda, was shared with the US embassy in Kyiv and members of the Donor Coordination Platform, a mechanism launched in January to better coordinate international financial support flowing into Ukraine. The reforms are not a condition for receiving military aid, a US official said.

    “This list was provided as a basis for consultation with the Government of Ukraine and key partners as part of our enduring support to Ukraine and its efforts to integrate into Europe, a goal the United States strongly supports,” the US embassy in Kyiv said in a statement.

    The White House document outlines changes Ukraine could make within three months, six months, one year and 18 months.

    Many of the proposals – including strengthening the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, enhancing the independence of the supervisory boards of Ukrainian state-owned companies, and constitutional court reform – are also requirements for EU membership and benchmarks for the IMF.

    “Reforms in the energy sector, a bastion of corruption and oligarchic control, are essential to cementing Ukraine’s European integration,” the State Department said in a strategy memo for Ukraine posted on its website in August.

    The memo added that “Ukraine must maintain stable financial management of its economy in order to continue to fight the war, rebuilt the economy, and achieve its goal to become a prosperous, democratic, western country. Ukraine must slay the corruption dragon once and for all.”

    The Ukrainian embassy said in its statement to CNN that Ukrainian officials signed an “energy memorandum” during their visit to Washington last month, and that Ukraine has passed a European-style law aimed at preventing abuses in wholesale energy markets. The White House document says implementation of that law should occur by April 2024.

    Zelensky, for his part, has been eager to show the US, EU and NATO that he is cracking down on corruption, particularly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He recently cleaned house at the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, firing his defense minister and several senior defense officials, and launched a number of high-profile raids earlier this year against officials suspected of graft.

    Ukraine considers the direct budget support it gets from the US and other foreign allies to be vital to keeping its economy afloat.

    “We are grateful that this money arrives as grants, because this does not affect the state debt of Ukraine, and this is a very important factor in these difficult times,” Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal told Blinken last month, referring to the US’ direct budget support for Ukraine.

    That money is also the “most closely scrutinized” form of aid to Ukraine, a senior Democratic Senate aide told CNN. “The Ukrainians know they have to account for every single penny. The Ukrainians making the decisions know that accountability is a key to their continuing to get funds. It’s been a consistent point of messaging from the administration. Which is fair considering all the support we’re giving them.”

    USAID’s inspector general and Ukraine’s Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor signed a memorandum of understanding in July aimed at strengthening USAID’s ability to probe any misuse or abuse of funds by Ukraine, including the direct budget support.

    The US intends to provide up to $3.3 billion in direct economic aid to Ukraine if Congress authorizes its $24 billion supplemental request for Ukraine.

    That supplemental request is now in limbo, however.

    Congress passed a short-term bill on Saturday to continue funding the government through mid-November, but the legislation does not include additional money for Ukraine. Republicans have increasingly questioned the wisdom of the funding and called for greater oversight of it, though some remain opposed to supporting Ukraine as a matter of principle, regardless of Kyiv’s anti-corruption efforts.

    The Pentagon, meanwhile, is also taking new steps to better monitor US military aid flowing to Ukraine. The Defense Department inspector general announced last month that it will be establishing a new team in Ukraine to monitor ongoing US security assistance to Kyiv, which has totaled more than $43.7 billion since the start of the Biden administration.

    It will mark the first time the DoD IG will have personnel based in Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, said spokeswoman Megan Reed.

    The White House noted in its draft list of priorities for Ukraine that the Ukrainian MoD should “redesign” its armament and procurement processes to better reflect NATO standards of “transparency, accountability, efficiency and competition in defense procurement.”

    Another issue that has come up in recent weeks is the question of whether Zelensky will move to hold a presidential election in March 2024. Sen. Lindsey Graham has pushed for an election, saying it will demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to freedom and democracy in the face of Russia’s invasion.

    Zelensky has said that holding an election in wartime would be complicated and expensive, noting that international observers must be allowed in to ensure the results are internationally recognized. But he said last month that he is ready to do so “if it is necessary.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Special counsel probe into Biden’s handling of classified documents appears to be nearing end | CNN Politics

    Special counsel probe into Biden’s handling of classified documents appears to be nearing end | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Special counsel Robert Hur’s interview of President Joe Biden is a sign that the classified documents investigation is nearing conclusion after casting a wide net that included dozens of witnesses during the ten-month long probe, multiple sources told CNN.

    The White House announced this week that Biden was questioned by Hur and his team over two days in a voluntary interview that CNN has reported was scheduled weeks earlier. While the White House has declined to discuss details of the questioning, including whether Biden invoked executive privilege, the interview is the first public development in months.

    One source told CNN that investigators have indicated they hope to wrap by the end of the year. As of now, it’s unclear if the probe will result in charges being filed, but sources familiar with the investigators’ line of questioning said they got the impression that’s unlikely, and there has been no discernible grand jury activity.

    The Justice Department has said that Hur will produce a final report explaining his findings from the investigation, a standard part of a special counsel’s work.

    “The breadth and depth of Hur’s work suggests that he is going to compile a detailed report to explain exactly how he conducted this investigation,” one source familiar with the investigation told CNN.

    Hur was appointed in January to investigate after classified documents were found at Biden’s former office at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, DC, and at his Wilmington, Delaware, home.

    Compared to special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into classified materials found at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, including the indictment handed down in June, Hur’s probe into Biden has continued to operate quietly behind the scenes.

    Still, the protracted length and exhaustive nature of the investigation has frustrated top Biden aides who expected it to wrap up months ago given the relatively small number of classified documents involved, according to a person familiar with the White House’s thinking.

    That person said some Biden aides believe Attorney General Merrick Garland was overly cautious in selecting Hur, an appointee to two top Justice Department roles during the Trump administration, to ensure the investigation was politically unassailable.

    Investigators working for Hur have interviewed a broad spectrum of witnesses — from longtime advisor and current counselor Steve Ricchetti, to former White House legal and communications aides, to a former low-level aide who helped pack up the vice president’s residence at the end of the Obama administration, sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

    Hur’s team also has reached out to people who worked in the Senate during the time Biden served in that chamber, sources said. That’s because some of the documents with classified markings date back to Biden’s time in the Senate, according to a statement from Biden’s personal attorney.

    As part of the investigation, Hur has sought to examine the handling of classified documents during Biden’s time in the Senate, a period before many of the strict procedures now used for handling classified documents, according to sources.

    That has caused Hur to confront the delicate issues of the Senate’s constitutional speech or debate protections, which limit the Justice Department’s ability to interview Senate staff without coordination with Senate lawyers, people briefed on the matter said.

    It’s unclear whether and how the Senate and Justice Department’s discussions over Senate-related interviews have been resolved. A special counsel spokesman declined to comment on the idea of no charges or on any discussions with the Senate.

    One person familiar with the investigation described members of Hur’s team as being professional but tedious in the level of detail they have sought in witness interviews. Investigators have asked about where staffers sat in the office, where they stored briefing books, and how they operated an office safe.

    Another person described a lengthy interview with FBI agents and lawyers focused on understanding everything surrounding specific documents. Investigators appeared to be following a process that identified meetings connected to specific classified documents or notes recovered from Biden properties, the person familiar with the interview said. Everyone who attended a meeting or briefing connected the document is being interviewed, the person said.

    Investigators appear to be trying to establish a chain of custody for the documents and the circumstances surrounding them to discern how the classified documents ended up in Biden’s office and home.

    Another source said: “The central question in this case is: Did the vice president of the United States intentionally take classified documents for personal use?”

    The challenge for investigators is how they assess culpability and the circumstances surrounding how the documents got to the Penn Biden Center and the president’s house in Delaware, the source said.

    A lawyer for one witness also described Hur’s process as being slow and methodical. Investigators interviewed this lawyer’s client earlier this year, but recently came back and asked his witness for additional documents.

    “They are certainly being sufficiently thorough, and there is a temptation to think they are doing some things twice,” the lawyer said.

    White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to say Tuesday if the president answered all questions posed to him or invoked executive privilege during the interview with Hur. Jean-Pierre also wouldn’t say if the Biden administration requested that the interview be postponed following Hamas’ attack on Israel over the weekend.

    “He’s been very much focused on the issues of the – you know – horrific events that we have seen in Israel,” she said. “As president, he has to do multiple things at once, and that’s what you saw him do this weekend.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis are both itching to debate each other | CNN Politics

    Why Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis are both itching to debate each other | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Joe Biden’s aides and Sean Hannity agree on this: They both would like to see Gavin Newsom debate Ron DeSantis.

    Everyone involved knows how odd it would be to have the California governor, who is seen as a potential future Democratic presidential candidate but is very adamantly not one currently, debating the Florida governor, who launched his Republican presidential run in the spring with the air of a front-runner but has seen his campaign stall through the summer months.

    DeSantis has gone from starting out as a worrisome contrast for some Biden aides to a monthlong campaign reboot, with his own advisers fretting they may not be able to turn his political fortunes around and looking for high-profile opportunities for him to stand out. Newsom has gone from inspiring eye rolls and suspicion from many in and around the White House a year ago to coordinating with Biden aides as he attempts to goad the Republican into more problems.

    The debate, which Newsom agreed to almost on a lark after the Fox News host pressed him, and later DeSantis, on camera to agree to an event he would host – has the two governors with very different interpersonal styles fencing over debate rules and logistics, dates and locations.

    “Boy,” Newsom said in an exclusive interview with CNN as he embraced his trolling of his Florida counterpart, “if I was running his campaign, I would be quietly asking, ‘What did you just do, Gov. DeSantis? Why did you agree to this? We have other things we should be doing, more important things, than debating this guy out there in California.’”

    Responding to the DeSantis team’s proposal for a live debate audience and to substitute a two-minute-long video for opening statements, Newsom said he was not impressed.

    “No notes, no holds barred, no parameters. Just make sure we both have equal time and see where it goes, see where it takes us. No games, no shows, no videos, no cheering sections. Just an honest back-and-forth comparing, contrasting visions,” the California governor said. “And he can defend his rhetoric and record and vision, and I’ll do my best to defend mine and promote Joe Biden.”

    A topic Newsom said he is ready to discuss includes what he called the “ruthlessness” of Republicans attacking presidential son Hunter Biden, a friend of his for years and now the subject of a special counsel investigation.

    “Some of the stuff that the way the right has mocked someone with substance abuse, addictions and other demons, it sickens me to my core as a father,” Newsom said. “They’re having a difficult time debating the success of this administration, as well as the CHIPS and the infrastructure bills, the investments that are coming in, the unemployment rate dropping.”

    Newsom said he was surprised when DeSantis told Hannity in an interview that he would accept the debate.

    DeSantis was not surprised. A person close to the Republican’s campaign told CNN that the governor had fully expected the topic to come up in the interview.

    The day after the interview aired, DeSantis’ campaign emailed donors a short memo touting its eagerness for the debate, pointing to statistics about crime rates and population growth and insisting that “California embodies American decline, while Florida is the blueprint for the Great American Comeback.”

    “Ron DeSantis is debating Gavin Newsom to highlight the choice facing American voters next year. The left wants America to follow the path of California’s decline – Ron DeSantis wants to reignite the American Dream, restore sanity, and ensure our nation’s best days are ahead,” reads the memo, obtained by CNN.

    A DeSantis aide pointed to the candidate telling NBC that he thought “it would be a good debate” and that he was eager to lay out a “very different approach to crime, very different approach to illegal immigration, and very different approach to taxes, government regulation.”

    The DeSantis campaign declined to comment further on the matter.

    Newsom knows he makes the perfect boogeyman for Republicans – the high-taxing, gun-banning, Covid lockdown-proselytizing California governor with the slicked-back hair, who first got famous in 2004 for going against state law and issuing gay marriage licenses when he was mayor of San Francisco.

    For Newsom, the whole point of the debate proposal is the asymmetric warfare. He isn’t running for president. He doesn’t have to worry about how this comes off to voters in Iowa or New Hampshire or anywhere else. He’s catering to a Democratic base and social media ecosystem that throws money and adds followers whenever a punch is thrown – like the $85,000 that went into the Biden campaign off an email Newsom sent to his email list announcing that DeSantis had accepted the debate.

    And if the debate does happen, all Newsom sees is upside. Best case: He embarrasses DeSantis, adding to the doubts over whether his presidential campaign can survive. Worst case: He is the one who gets embarrassed, and DeSantis gets his moment – but against someone who isn’t running for president and can absorb blows that otherwise might have landed on Biden.

    The day before DeSantis accepted the Newsom debate, for example, Vice President Kamala Harris dismissed his invitation for a public session head-to-head over the new Florida middle-school curriculum, which includes a mention of slaves developing certain skills that “could be applied for their personal benefit.” A spokesperson for Harris did not respond to a question about what she thought of Newsom’s actions, but, at a fundraiser on Saturday, she said, “Let us not be distracted by an undebatable point, such as whether the enslaved people benefited from slavery.”

    Or Newsom could just keep poking DeSantis for not agreeing to a debate.

    Being “the reelected, term limited governor of California, he feels an enormous degree of freedom to go out and fight these fights, because someone’s got to do it,” said a Newsom adviser.

    DeSantis had wanted his big debate moment to be about taking on Donald Trump, not Newsom.

    But the governor has been unable so far to coalesce support from Republicans as Trump’s poll numbers continue to rise – a fact he’ll be reminded of later this month when he is joined on a Milwaukee debate stage by at least six other candidates, with Trump in the midst of a weekslong will-he-or-won’t-he tease about whether he will participate.

    DeSantis’ campaign also severely underestimated how Trump’s multiple indictments would galvanize Republicans and overshadow the GOP race, leaving other contenders straining for attention.

    Rather than entering the fall in a position of strength, DeSantis has limped through the summer. His team now acknowledges internally it botched a chance to consolidate support at a time when Trump has barely campaigned. Support has stalled, several donors have publicly expressed concern and withheld additional resources for now, and the campaign has frantically shed expenses after overextending on payroll and event costs. Last week, in the latest overhaul, he replaced his embattled campaign manager with his gubernatorial office chief of staff, who had already been a key adviser.

    What, in any other context, would have likely been an unimaginable sideshow, the debate with Newsom started looking like the rare chance for a breakout, a high-upside gamble for DeSantis, according to the source close to the campaign. If nothing else, it would put DeSantis in front of Fox News’ audience of Republican primary voters without Trump or anyone else in the field.

    “Right now, Trump is dominating the news, and this is a way to get in front of Republicans,” the source said. “With Trump sucking up so much oxygen, this is a way to get back some of the oxygen.”

    Last July, Newsom flew to Washington largely so he could tell then-White House chief of staff Ron Klain and first lady Jill Biden that he really meant what he had first said publicly to CNN: He was not going to run against the president despite his talk about how Democrats needed to be fighting harder than Biden appeared to be doing and despite breezing across the White House driveway with his suit jacket tossed over his shoulder as concerns circulated about the president’s age.

    When Klain, long a Newsom booster, walked him around the West Wing to introduce him to other aides, several did not do much to mask their disinterest.

    But after

    Biden made his reelection plans clear    , it became easier for his loyalists to warm to the governor. Some still see Newsom as mugging for attention, but they have stayed in close contact, including giving the green light when Newsom’s team alerted them that he wanted to do a one-on-one interview with Hannity and push for the debate with DeSantis.

    If it happens, a Biden campaign aide said, “from our perspective, we’ve got one of our most high-profile surrogates going on Fox for 90 minutes, advocating not for his own policies and not for his own candidacy, but for the president. That’s a net positive.”

    Asked about the turnaround, Klain – now an informal outside adviser to Biden’s reelection campaign – told CNN that “the president and his team are grateful for all the things the governor does to advance their shared agenda.”

    A Newsom aide told CNN the coordination – between emails he has put his name on and in-person events – has produced almost $3 million in fundraising for Biden since April, which makes up about 4% of the reelection campaign’s total fundraising to date. Emails with Newsom’s name on them generate some of the highest response rates, according to people familiar with the fundraising. The Biden campaign declined comment on the fundraising.

    Newsom said he knows that many people will see his actions as an attempt to stay relevant. Advisers say he clams up even privately when talk turns to a possible future presidential run, and the governor told CNN that positioning for 2028 is a “trivial consideration.”

    He said he is driven by not wanting to have any regrets about not being involved – and if that means an ongoing series of debates with other Republicans after DeSantis, he’d be ready.

    “To the extent these presidential candidates want a debate, I’m happy to debate them,” Newsom said. “And if that’s where they feel they can get their best bang for the buck as they run for president, fine by me, and I’ll have the president’s back.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro convicted of contempt of Congress | CNN Politics

    Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro convicted of contempt of Congress | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Donald Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro has been convicted of contempt of Congress for not complying to a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    Navarro is the second ex-aide to the former president to be prosecuted for his lack of cooperation with the committee. Steve Bannon was convicted last year on two contempt counts. Bannon’s case is currently on appeal.

    Navarro pledged to appeal based on executive privilege issues.

    “We knew going in what the verdict was going to be. That is why this is going to the appeals court,” he told reporters outside the courthouse. “And we feel – look, I said from the beginning this is going to the Supreme Court. I said from the beginning I’m willing to go to prison to settle this issue, I’m willing to do that.”

    Hear from ex-Trump aide after guilty of contempt verdict

    Asked by CNN if he’s spoken with the former president or reached out for help on legal bills, Navarro called Trump “a rock,” but did not elaborate on any communications.

    “President Trump has been a rock in terms of assistance. We talk when we need to talk,” Navarro said. “He will win the presidential race in 2024, in November. You know why? Because the people are tired of Joe Biden weaponizing courts like this and the Department of Justice.”

    After the verdict was read, Navarro’s lawyers sought a mistrial, raising concerns about any influence alleged protestors may have had when jurors took a break outdoors Thursday afternoon. US District Judge Amit Mehta did not immediately rule on the motion.

    The judge scheduled Navarro’s sentencing for January 12, 2024.

    Tim Mulvey, former spokesperson for House January 6 committee, celebrated the verdict.

    “His defiance of the committee was brazen. Like the other witnesses who attempted to stonewall the committee, he thought he was above the law. He isn’t. That’s a good thing for the rule of law. I imagine that those under indictment right now are getting a good reminder of that right now,” Mulvey told CNN in a statement.

    Prosecutors told the jury during closing arguments Thursday that Navarro “made a choice” not to comply with a February 2022 subpoena.

    Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Aloi said that government only works if people play by the rules and are held accountable if they don’t.

    “The subpoena – it is not hard to understand,” she said, adding that Navarro knew “what he was required to do and when he was required to do it.”

    Navarro’s attorney Stanley Woodward contested the idea that the subpoena was simple, staying that the subpoena did not specify where in the Capitol complex Navarro was supposed to show up for his deposition.

    He also said that prosecutors failed to prove that Navarro was willful in his failure to comply with the subpoena, arguing that prosecutors hadn’t established that his non-compliance with the demand for testimony was not the result of a mistake or accident.

    “Why didn’t the government present evidence to you about where Dr. Navarro was or what he was doing” on the day of the scheduled deposition, Woodward asked the jury. “Something stinks.”

    Prosecutor John Crabb responded: “Who cares where he was. What matters is where he wasn’t.”

    Crabb repeatedly referred to Navarro as “that man’ while pointing to him, telling the jury at one point, “that man thinks he is above the law.”

    The gestures elicited strong reactions from Navarro, who at times threw up his hand, shook his head or laughed. Woodward eventually jumped up and whispered to his client, and the two stood quietly together for the remainder of the proceeding.

    The jury was attentive during closing arguments, watching carefully as lawyers presented their final case. Navarro stood directly across the room with his hands clasped and stared at jurors intently.

    After the jury was dismissed, Woodward told the judge that the defense was seeking a mistrial because they had learned the jury had taken an outdoor break shortly before rendering the verdict and that during that break, they were around a “number” of January 6-related protestors demonstrating and chanting outside of the court.

    “It’s obvious the jury would have heard those protestors,” Woodward said. “It’s impossible for us to know what influence that would have” on their verdict.

    Crabb challenged the idea that there were protestors in the park next to the courthouse where the jurors took their break. Woodward countered that Navarro himself had been “accosted” earlier in the day by a protestor when he was coming through that park.

    Mehta said he knew that jurors had asked to take their break outside, where they were accompanied by a court security officer, but that he was not aware that protestors were in the park. He told Woodward that he was not going to rule on the mistrial request without receiving more briefing and evidence.

    Navarro was briefly interrupted by protesters when he left the courthouse after the verdict was read Thursday.

    It’s a “sad day for America, not ‘cause … they were guilty verdicts, because I can’t come out and have an honest, decent conversation with the people of America,” Navarro said.

    “People of America, I want you to understand that this is the problem we have right here – this kind of divide in our country between the woke Marxist left and everybody else here. And this is nuts,” he added.

    Navarro joined the Trump White House to advise on trade and became a well-known face of the Trump administration, while earning a reputation for sparring behind the scenes with his White House colleagues.

    He played a prominent role in the administration’s Covid-19 response as well. He led some of the efforts to speed up the deployment of medical supplies and also was a defender of fringe Trump views about the virus, including the former president’s advocacy of the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine.

    Navarro was still working at the White House in the period after the 2020 election and lost a pre-trial fight to argue to the jury that Trump asserted an executive privilege that shielded him from the subpoena, and he and his attorneys have signaled that, if convicted, he will raise that and other legal issues on appeal.

    “So today’s ‘Judgment Day,’” Navarro told reporters as he walked into the courthouse Thursday.

    “I have been stripped, stripped of virtually every defense by the court and yet there is some defense left and the reality here is the government has not proved his case,” he said. “Please understand that the Biden-weaponized Department of Justice is the biggest law firm in the world. That’s what I’m fighting against.”

    The trial itself moved forward this week with notable speed and simplicity. It took less than a day for the jury to hear all the evidence in the case.

    Prosecutors put just three witnesses on the stand, all former staff members of the House January 6 committee. The Justice Department used their testimony to make the case that the committee had good reason to subpoena Navarro and that he was informed repeatedly of its demands.

    In her closing argument, prosecutor Aloi told the jury that Navarro “had knowledge about a plan to delay the activities of Congress on January 6.”

    “The defendant was more than happy to share that knowledge” in television interviews and in other public remarks, Aloi said, “except to the congressional committee that could do something about” preventing a future attack.

    Woodward sought to paint the mention about the attack on the Capitol and the disruption of the peaceful transfer of power as a distraction.

    “This case is not about what happened on January 6,” Woodward said in his closing argument.

    Navarro’s defense team engaged in only brief cross examination, questioning just one of the government’s witnesses. His lawyers were focused on the element of the charge that requires a showing that Navarro was willful and deliberate in his decision not to comply with the subpoena – meaning that his lack of compliance was not the result of an inadvertent mistake or accident.

    The defense did not put on any witnesses of their own, having abandoned a plan to call an FBI agent who worked on the Justice Department probe into Navarro for questioning on the lack of DOJ investigating into Navarro’s whereabouts on the day his committee deposition was scheduled.

    Navarro’s service as a Trump White House aide has generated continuing legal troubles for the former trade adviser – troubles that go beyond the criminal case.

    The Justice Department brought a civil lawsuit against him to obtain government records from Navarro’s personal email account that were withheld from the National Archives upon his departure from government. He has appealed the ruling against him in that case.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden administration seeks to remove medical bills from credit reports | CNN Politics

    Biden administration seeks to remove medical bills from credit reports | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Millions of Americans with unpaid medical bills would no longer have that debt show up on credit reports under proposals being considered by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    The agency, which is soliciting feedback from small businesses that may be affected, expects to issue a proposed rule next year, the bureau said Thursday.

    If the rule is finalized, consumer credit companies would be barred from including medical debt and collection information on reports that creditors use to make underwriting decisions.

    Creditors would only be able consider non-medical information when evaluating borrowers’ loan applications. And debt collectors would no longer be able to use the listing of medical debt on credit reports as leverage to pressure consumers into paying questionable bills, the bureau said.

    “Research shows that medical bills have little predictive value in credit decisions, yet tens of millions of American households are dealing with medical debt on their credit reports,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “When someone gets sick, they should be able to focus on getting better, rather than fighting debt collectors trying to extort them into paying bills they may not even owe.”

    Roughly 20% of Americans reported having medical debt, according to a 2022 report from the bureau. But Chopra stressed that many health care bills contain mistakes.

    “Families are often barraged with a string of confusing and error-ridden bills, and too many of us have ended up in a doom loop of disputes between insurance companies and health care providers,” he said. “These bills, even ones where the patient doesn’t owe anything further, can end up being reported on the patient’s credit report.”

    The proposals under consideration are the latest step in the bureau’s efforts to curb the impact of medical debt on consumers. CFPB and other agencies are also looking into medical billing practices, including costly products such as medical credit cards and installment loans.

    The White House has also sought to help lessen Americans’ medical debt burden as part of its effort to help people contend with inflation and higher costs of living. Last year, it laid out a four-point plan to help protect consumers, including having the bureau investigate credit reporting companies and debt collectors that violate patients’ and families’ rights.

    Medical debt has lowered people’s credit scores, which affects their ability to buy a home, get a mortgage or own a small business, Vice President Kamala Harris said in a call with reporters on Thursday.

    “We know credit scores determine whether a person can have economic health and well-being, much less the ability to grow their wealth,” she said. “Today, we are offering a solution to fix this problem … Together, these measures will improve the credit scores of millions of Americans so that they will better be able to invest in their future.”

    Also last year, the three largest credit reporting agencies – Equifax, Experian and TransUnion – announced they would remove nearly 70% of medical debt from consumer credit reports.

    The agencies no longer include medical debt that went to collections on consumer credit reports once it has been paid off. That eliminated billions of dollars of debt on consumer records.

    In addition, unpaid medical collection debt no longer appears on credit reports for the first year, whereas the previous grace period was six months. That gives people more time to work with their health insurers or providers to address the bills. And medical collection debt of less than $500 is no longer included on credit reports.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s turn against Israel offers stark reminder of what his diplomacy looks like | CNN Politics

    Trump’s turn against Israel offers stark reminder of what his diplomacy looks like | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump’s inflammatory and artless comments about Hamas’ horror in Israel emphasize the defining characteristic of his attitude toward foreign policy and his entire political world view: It’s all about him.

    Trump criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, lauded Hezbollah militants as “very smart” and sought political gain from the attacks that killed 1,200 people by claiming that if the last election was not “rigged,” he’d be the American president and they’d never have happened.

    The ex-president openly admitted a grievance against Netanyahu, complaining he had pulled out at the last minute from joining the US air attack that assassinated Iranian intelligence chief Qasem Soleimani in Iraq in 2020. Trump had previously fumed over the Israeli leader’s perceived disloyalty in recognizing he lost the election.

    Trump is now a private citizen, and it’s possible he wouldn’t have addressed the situation in the same way if he were president – although there were multiple examples of his tone deafness and indiscretion when he was in the White House. But he’s also the 2024 Republican front-runner for president and his statements are therefore scrutinized for clues over how he would behave in office. His latest comments add to plentiful evidence that a second Trump term would be even more riotous at home and globally disruptive than his first four years in power.

    The former president’s remarks also offered an opening to his GOP rivals, who accused him of behavior unsuitable for a potential commander in chief after an ally came under attack amid horrendous scenes of carnage in which some Americans were also killed. Some bemoaned his apparent admiration for Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia group that is hostile toward Israel.

    “He’s a fool. Only a fool would make those kinds of comments,” former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has rooted his campaign in criticizing Trump’s suitability for office, told CNN.

    “Only a fool would give comments that could give aid and comfort to Israel’s adversary in this situation,” Christie continued. “This is someone who cares, not about the American people, not about the people of Israel, but he cares about one person and one person only, the person he sees in the mirror when he wakes up in the morning.”

    The former president tried to defuse the growing controversy on Thursday evening, releasing a statement in which he insisted that “there was no better friend or ally of Israel” than him. He accused President Joe Biden of weakness and incompetence. “With President Trump back in office, Israel, and everyone else, will be safe again!” he said. The former president was continuing the clean-up on Friday on his Truth Social platform, praising what he said was the “skill and determination” of the Israel Defense Forces and later posting “#IStandWithBibi.”

    Trump’s original grievance-based analysis reflects a transactional, unorthodox approach to foreign policy that often prioritizes his own personal goals over a standard understanding of the national interest. It also highlighted a contrast with his potential 2024 election opponent. Biden reacted to the attack by using all of the tools of traditional statesmanship, including rhetoric, personal behind-the-scenes contacts with key foreign leaders and by mobilizing allies. Like Trump, Biden has had a personal and political beef with Netanyahu – but shelved his differences with him weeks before the attack and has been in constant contact with the prime minister since it occurred.

    Biden is seeking to strike a balance. He has shown the most ardent support for Israel of any recent US president and acknowledged its desire to retaliate and reestablish its sense of security after the most shocking penetration of its borders and national psyche in 50 years. But Biden is also sending private and public signals to Netanyahu that Israel’s response should not infringe the laws of war and that he should consider the humanitarian consequences of an invasion of Gaza, as he seeks to prevent the war escalating into a dangerous regional conflict that could draw in the US.

    Biden’s opponents have every right to critique his foreign policies and to ask whether a hands-off approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict meant his administration dismissed the threat from Hamas. Critics also argue his attempts to open dialogue with Iran, a key sponsor of the militant group, emboldened the Islamic Republic and threatened Israel’s security. But Biden is also forging a contrast of temperament and approach with Trump that will be at the center of his campaign’s narrative if the 2024 election is a rematch of 2020 and will boil down to this question to voters: Is Trump fit for the Oval Office?

    Trump said on Fox News on Wednesday that Netanyahu had been “hurt very badly” by the attacks. “He was not prepared, and Israel was not prepared,” the former president said. His comments were not necessarily wrong and the intelligence and political failures in Israel will be investigated after the war. But the timing and tone of criticism is questionable given that Israel, one of America’s closest allies, is suffering after a horrendous attack on civilians and is in need of support not political points scoring and second guessing. His willingness to trash Netanyahu, despite the Israeli leader’s considerable efforts to align himself politically with the ex-president, also shows how loyalty is usually a one-way street for Trump and those who he believes have crossed him are liable to get a public dressing down.

    Trump’s comments were not the first time he has appeared to seek a political benefit from his foreign policy and his positions on Israel especially. Last October, he complained that American Jews were not sufficiently grateful to him for actions like moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem when he was in the White House.

    “No President has done more for Israel than I have,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, adding that it was somewhat surprising that “our wonderful Evangelicals are far more appreciative of this than the people of the Jewish faith, especially those living in the U.S.” He was accused of using antisemitic tropes demanding the loyalty of American Jews. The White House said he insulted Jews and Israelis.

    Trump’s remarks Wednesday on Hezbollah, which has the capacity to rain even more carnage on Israel, also appeared inappropriate in the circumstances. “They’re vicious, and they’re smart. And, boy, are they vicious, because nobody’s ever seen the kind of sight that we’ve seen,” Trump said during a political event in Florida. His statement was in keeping with his habit of praising foreign adversaries he sees as tough even if they rule with an iron fist, infringe basic humanitarian values and are US adversaries. He’s rarely concealed his admiration of Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korean tyrant Kim Jong Un, for instance. And he added to his long record of praising Vladimir Putin – an accused war criminal because of atrocities committed during the war in Ukraine – when he recently described the Russian leader as “a genius.”

    Trump often appeared to be willing to cede national interests to his political benefit while in office. For instance, at a summit with Putin in Helsinki he sided with Putin who dismissed findings by US intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in attempt to help him.

    The former president is advocating a return to his “America First” nationalist foreign policy, prizes tough talk and ruthlessness on the global stage, and remains disdainful of allies and the international security architecture that has been the foundation of American power since the end of World War II. While these are positions that would represent a sharp transformation of US foreign policy, it is quite legitimate for him to present them to voters and try to win support for his vision.

    Yet his recent comments will only reinforce the impression often left by his actions as president that his own aspirations are most important. They also show Trump’s quintessential contempt for the rules of politics, foreign policy and even basic human decency, which explain why he horrifies many Americans and foreign governments. But this behavior is key to his authenticity for grass roots Republicans who abhor the codes of what they see as establishment elites.

    Trump during the Florida event criticized Israel for not taking part in the raid that killed Soleimani. “I’ll never forget that Bibi Netanyahu let us down. That was a very terrible thing, I will say that,” he said. It was not immediately clear whether Israel had considered an operational role in the strike or whether Trump had broken a confidence with an ally or even revealed classified information.

    The ex-president has a record however of loose talk on government secrets. He has been indicted over the alleged mishandling of national security material among classified documents he hoarded at his Mar-a-Lago resort after leaving office. Last week, ABC News reported that Trump allegedly shared US secrets about the submarine service and nuclear weapons with an Australian billionaire. Trump denies all wrongdoing.

    The ex-president’s GOP rivals, who have struggled to exploit his political vulnerabilities without alienating his super loyal supporters pounced on his criticism of Netanyahu.

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis accused Trump of throwing “verbal grenades” at Israel. “Now’s not the time to be doing, like, what Donald Trump did by attacking Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, attacking Israel’s defense minister, saying somehow that Hezbollah were ‘very smart,’” DeSantis said in New Hampshire. “Now’s not the time to air personal grievances about an Israeli prime minister.” Former Vice President Mike Pence hammered Trump’s foreign policy – even though he was part of the former president’s administration that repeatedly challenged American values. Pence also claimed that Trump had somehow changed in his years out of office, a debatable proposition that looks self-serving since it appears intended to create plausible distance from Trump’s excesses while in office.

    “He’s simply not expressing, and his imitators in his primary, are not expressing the same muscular American foreign policy that we lived out every day,” Pence said on a local New Hampshire radio.

    What Trump is expressing is his idiosyncratic, convention-busting brand of foreign policy rooted in his personal prejudices, grievances and search for political advantage that will once again rock the world if he wins the 2024 election.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge rejects Mark Meadows’ bid to move Georgia election interference case to federal court | CNN Politics

    Judge rejects Mark Meadows’ bid to move Georgia election interference case to federal court | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge on Friday rejected former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ bid to move his Georgia criminal case to federal court, a significant setback for Meadows and a troubling sign for former President Donald Trump.

    US District Judge Steve Jones found that the allegations against Meadows contained in the Fulton County district attorney’s indictment on election subversion charges were largely “related to political activities” and not to Meadows’ role as White House chief of staff.

    “The evidence before the Court overwhelmingly suggests that Meadows was not acting in his scope of executive branch duties during most of the Overt Acts alleged,” wrote Jones, a Barack Obama appointee.

    The Friday ruling has significant implications for the former president and his 18 co-defendants in the Fulton County district attorney’s sprawling racketeering case, though the judge said the ruling did not apply to the other defendants. Meadows was the first of five defendants who already filed motions to move the case to federal court – and Trump is expected to do so, too.

    Meadows unsuccessfully argued that his case, now playing out in Georgia state court, should be moved because the allegations in the indictment were connected to his official duties as White House chief of staff. His lawyers wanted the case in federal court so they could try to get it dismissed altogether, invoking federal immunity extended to certain individuals who are prosecuted or sued for conduct tied to their US government roles.

    The judge’s decision could set the tone for the other defendants also trying to move their cases. It’s an ominous sign for the defendants who are hoping to invoke the same federal immunity protections.

    The judge explicitly stated in his ruling that he is not offering any opinion about Fulton County’s underlying criminal case against Meadows, who has pleaded not guilty.

    Jones wrote in the decision that Meadows had not met even the “‘quite low’ threshold for removal” to federal court, because his activities for the Trump campaign were outside the scope of his federal role as White House chief of staff.

    “The Court finds that the color of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff did not include working with or working for the Trump campaign, except for simply coordinating the President’s schedule, traveling with the President to his campaign events, and redirecting communications to the campaign,” Jones wrote. “Thus, consistent with his testimony and the federal statutes and regulations, engaging in political activities is exceeds the outer limits of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff.”

    The Hatch Act, which prohibits federal officials from engaging in political activity as part of their official duties, was “helpful in defining the outer limits of the scope the White House Chief of Staff’s authority,” the judge said.

    “These prohibitions on executive branch employees (including the White House Chief of Staff) reinforce the Court’s conclusion that Meadows has not shown how his actions relate to the scope of his federal executive branch office. Federal officer removal is thereby inapposite,” the judge wrote in the decision.

    Meadows on Friday swiftly appealed the ruling to the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The indictment identifies eight overt acts Meadows allegedly took in furtherance of the scheme to overturn the 2020 election results. Meadows argued that these actions were part of his federal duties – and thus, the case should be moved to federal court – but Jones disagreed.

    “The Court finds insufficient evidence to establish that the gravamen, or a heavy majority of overt acts alleged against Meadows relate to his role as White House Chief of Staff,” Jones wrote, adding that “Meadows failed to provide sufficient evidence that these actions related to any legitimate purpose of the executive branch.”

    One of Meadows’ most critical actions was his participation in Trump’s phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in early January 2021, when Trump infamously prodded Raffensperger to “find” enough votes for him to overcome Joe Biden’s margin of victory.

    Jones ruled that this phone call “was made regarding private litigation brought by President and his campaign” and was “therefore outside Meadows’ federal role as an executive branch officer.”

    Meadows other actions in late 2020, including contacts with state lawmakers that Trump hoped would help him undermine the election results, also weren’t tied to his government role, Jones concluded.

    “The Court finds that the underlying substance of those meetings and calls were related to political activities and not to the scope of Meadows’s federal office,” the judge wrote.

    The ruling is also a personal blow to Meadows, who took a significant risk by testifying about the removal bid at a recent hearing, where he was questioned under oath by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ team. Prosecutors could potentially use his testimony against him in future proceedings.

    After the charges against Trump and his 18 co-defendants were filed, the former president’s lawyers signaled they intended to try to move Trump’s case to federal court, just as Trump had unsuccessfully sought to do in his New York criminal case. Trump’s lawyers told the judge overseeing the state case on Thursday that he may seek to move the case to federal court, but they haven’t filed the legal motions yet.

    Trump has 30 days from the time he entered his not-guilty plea to file to move his case.

    CNN has reached out to lawyers for Meadows and Trump for comment.

    In addition to Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, the former Trump administration DOJ official, and three Georgia GOP officials who served as Trump’s fake electors have also filed to move their cases to federal court. Former Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer and former GOP Coffee County Chairwoman Cathy Latham have a joint hearing scheduled on September 20, while the third fake elector seeking federal removal – Shawn Still, a Georgia state senator – has a hearing on September 18.

    While Meadows’ motion was rejected, Shafer, Still and Latham have made a slightly different argument: They say they acted as fake electors at Trump’s direction. But unlike Meadows, who worked in the White House in 2020, the fake electors have a more tenuous link to the federal government, as nominees to serve as real electors for Trump if he won Georgia, who would’ve participated in the federally mandated Electoral College process.

    In his decision Friday, Jones noted that his ruling regarding Meadows “does not, at this time, have any effect on” the other defendants who are also trying to move their case to federal court. Those motions are still pending before Jones, and evidentiary hearings are scheduled for later this month.

    “The Court will assess these Defendants’ arguments and evidence following the forthcoming hearings…. independent of its conclusion” in the Meadows case, Jones wrote.

    There are several reasons why it would be advantageous for Meadows and the other defendants to move their cases to federal court. In addition to making immunity claims under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, a federal trial would likely have a jury pool more sympathetic to Trump and his co-defendants.

    While the state courthouse for this case is based in deep-blue Fulton County, the federal court district that includes Fulton also contains the more-Republican northern part of the state.

    At his hearing last month, Meadows surprisingly took the stand trying to help move his case to federal court, testifying for more than three hours about what happened in the White House after the 2020 election.

    Meadows tried to argue that all of his work as the president’s top adviser fit into his role as chief of staff – even when it spilled into politics.

    “It’s still part of my job to make sure that the president is safe and secure and able to perform his job. And that’s what I was doing,” Meadows said, later adding, “serving the president of the United States and … it takes on all kinds of forms.”

    But the Fulton County prosecutors peppered Meadows with questions about how his official job involved things like setting up phone calls involving campaign lawyers, such as Trump’s infamous January 2021 phone call Raffensperger.

    Jones concluded that some of Meadows’ high-stakes testimony on the witness stand was lacking – and even used some of it against him in the ruling.

    “When questioned about the scope of his authority, Meadows was unable to explain the limits of his authority, other than his inability to stump for the President or work on behalf of the campaign,” Jones wrote, saying he would give Meadows’ testimony on that topic “less weight” than the other evidence.

    Jones also cited Meadows’ acknowledgment that the lawyers he included in the phone call with Georgia’s secretary of state were working for Trump or his campaign – not the government.

    Fulton County prosecutors also subpoenaed Raffensperger to testify at Meadows’ hearing, where Raffensperger said plainly there was no role for the federal government in certifying Georgia’s elections.

    “It was a campaign call,” Raffensperger testified.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harris allies and key Democrats rally around vice president amid party handwringing | CNN Politics

    Harris allies and key Democrats rally around vice president amid party handwringing | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Allies of Vice President Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats are sending a clear message to their fellow party members who speculate that she should be replaced as President Joe Biden’s running mate in 2024: It’s time to stop it.

    “It’s not only a distraction, it’s offensive,” Maryland Gov. Wes Moore told CNN in an interview.

    The vice president has faced renewed calls from some pundits and columnists to be dropped from the ticket amid heightened concerns about the president’s age and doubts over her ability to lead if Biden were no longer able.

    It’s at least the second major go-around of questioning whether Harris’ rightful place is by Biden’s side for the 2024 contentious race, leaving her office tired of the fraught conversation, according to a person familiar with the dynamic.

    “Everybody’s sort of over it,” the person said.

    The feeling is shared across most of the Democratic spectrum, who hope the party turns their sights on former President Donald Trump or whomever the Republican presidential nominee will be, instead of handwringing about themselves.

    A source close to the Biden campaign told CNN: “People need to get on board and recognize every time they undermine the vice president, they undermine the campaign. We cannot afford to lose to these Republicans. So, get on board.”

    There have both been private and public efforts to deliver this message.

    Privately, according to a person familiar with campaign operations, the Biden campaign contacted both former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, after neither directly answer repeated questions from CNN about whether Harris was the best running mate for Biden on the 2024 ticket. The campaign asked Pelosi and Raskin to clarify their comments and both lawmakers later cleaned up their remarks to offer direct messages of support.

    Raskin told CNN in a follow-up statement Friday that “Vice President Harris has excelled in perhaps the most ambiguous and challenging job in our constitutional system and she is unquestionably the best running mate for President Biden in 2024.”

    Pelosi’s office offered no additional statement but pointed CNN to the praise Pelosi heaped on Harris in her interview, saying she’s “very politically astute, I don’t think people give her enough credit.”

    Discussions on how best to shepherd the party along are also happening among groups like the Congressional Black Caucus, who are actively talking about how to combat the replacement chatter and other attacks against the vice president, according to a source familiar with the effort.

    “Some of us need to say that they are acting in many ways like agents for the MAGA crowd,” Rev. Al Sharpton told CNN. He plans to call on Democrats to stop during CBC weekend in Washington, DC. “I can only think that they are either politically stupid or working for the opposition.”

    And according to conversations with more than a dozen Democratic strategists, elected officials and people close to the vice president, many will join Sharpton in urging Democrats to stop their groaning over the Biden-Harris ticket and end the chatter of potentially replacing the vice president.

    Publicly, key Democrats have come out to support Harris, casting the lingering doubt as harmful to Biden and his 2024 chances.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom said “of course” Harris should be the Democratic 2024 vice presidential nominee. Newsom and Harris are old friends – and sometimes frenemies.

    “I mean, by definition, if I think this administration last two, two-and-a-half years, has been one of the most outstanding administrations the last few decades. And she’s a member of that administration, she gets to lay and claim credit to a lot of that success. The answer is absolutely,” he said in an interview to CNN earlier this week.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat and a former rival who was once iced out by the vice president for her lukewarm support, said Thursday she was proud to support Harris’ campaign with Biden.

    “Vice President Harris is a passionate, clear, unyielding advocate for Americans’ freedoms, leading the administration’s efforts to protect reproductive freedom and strengthen voting rights,” Warren said in a statement. “I am proud to support her campaign with President Biden and I’m confident that the Administration’s record of delivering for American families will lead them to victory in 2024.”

    Many who CNN spoke to believe the origins of the doubt come from a place of misogyny, racism or jealousy from other Democrats who wish they were in the vice president’s spot. Harris is the first woman and first Black and South Asian person in her role.

    “There’s a lot of people in Washington who would love that job,” said Jim Messina, a Democratic operative who ran Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign. “I think that a lot of the criticism at the at the vice president is borderline misogynistic and there’s a lot of people who judge her harder than they would judge a male politician (in) that role.”

    Moore, the only Black governor in the US, said, “The attacks on her, they hit different – they hit our ears differently. And I think people should remember that.”

    But others cite Harris’ low poll numbers and history of gaffes as reasons to take a second look at her position. Three prominent political columnists collectively suggested politicians like Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia as possibilities to replace Harris.

    Contacted by CNN, each Democrat rejected the notion.

    “I absolutely do not think Vice President Harris should be dropped,” Raimondo told CNN directly. “I fully support Vice President Harris on the ticket. I think she is doing an incredible job as vice president and is a strong leader for our country.”

    “Gov. Whitmer supports President Biden and Vice President Harris,” a spokesperson for the Michigan governor responded.

    “‘I’ve seen the vice president up close and in action in my state, and you couldn’t contain the excitement in the room. I’m hard-pressed to imagine a better partner for President Biden,” Warnock told CNN.

    “Kamala Harris is a tremendous leader. I was proud to introduce the Momnibus with her and am pleased we can continue to work together to end disparities in maternal health. I am on team Biden-Harris and enthusiastically support their re-election in 2024,” Underwood said in a statement.

    “Any assertion that there is anyone better qualified to run on the Democratic ticket other than President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris is absolutely ludicrous. I am excited to do my part to ensure that they are both re-elected so that we can continue delivering for the people of this country,” Bass said in a statement.

    It’s unclear whether the latest round of coalescing behind the vice president will be enough to stop all the handwringing.

    Harris and the Biden administration have spent the last several months trying to build up her public profile, bolstering her public schedule to include stops focused on the hot 2024 issue of abortion as well as being the first-in-line responder to GOP attacks on freedom. On Thursday, the White House announced she would serve as the head a newly launched, first-of-its kind White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, the latest step in the Biden administration’s efforts to enact meaningful gun control against the backdrop of a deadlocked Congress.

    Harris has also beefed up her fundraising efforts, a key signal of her expanded role in the campaign.

    Biden aides see their path to victory next year embedded firmly in their ability to secure Black voters, women, young people and other groups that tend to respond warmly to Harris.

    But this most recent round of speculation comes as Republicans have frequently made Harris a central figure in their campaign trail attacks, with some – such as former US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley – insinuating that this upcoming election is really about the vice president due to Biden’s age.

    Asked earlier this month about her reaction to constant critiques, Harris said in an interview that it was “not new.”

    “They feel the need to attack because they’re scared that we will win based on the merit of the work that Joe Biden and I, and our administration, has done,” she added.

    More recently, during a conversation at a Pennsylvania community college on voting rights, Harris did not directly reference the rumbles over her place on the ticket. But in a thinly veiled moment, Harris called those who once doubted her and then-candidate Biden’s 2020 bid, “haters.”

    “So, when people turned out in 2020 – even though they were the doubters. I would say, some of the haters. Let’s keep it real,” Harris said, with some laughter.

    There was “record turnout, and it’s because you voted that Joe Biden’s president of the United States and I’m vice president of the United States,” she added to a crowd of younger voters.

    It was reflective of what appears to be her office’s larger “say nothing” stance, at least publicly.

    “They’ve been in the mode of, they’re ignoring it,” one source familiar with Harris’ office told CNN.

    And those close to Harris say, though she’s generally “very aware of what people are saying,” it’s unlikely she’ll proactively address the calls for her to leave the ticket. Instead, she’ll work through it.

    “I think she keeps her head down and keep working,” Sharpton told CNN.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal appeals court extends limits on Biden administration communications with social media companies to top US cybersecurity agency | CNN Business

    Federal appeals court extends limits on Biden administration communications with social media companies to top US cybersecurity agency | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    A federal appeals court has expanded the scope of a ruling that limits the Biden administration’s communications with social media companies, saying it now also applies to a top US cybersecurity agency.

    The ruling last month from the conservative 5th Circuit US Court of Appeals severely limits the ability of the White House, the surgeon general, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI to communicate with social media companies about content related to Covid-19 and elections that the government views as misinformation.

    The preliminary injunction had been on pause and a recent procedural snafu over a request from the plaintiffs in the case to broaden its scope led the court on Tuesday to withdraw its earlier opinion and issue a new one that now includes the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. That agency is charged with protecting non-military networks from hacking and other homeland security threats.

    Similar to the ruling last month, in which the appeals court said the federal government had “likely violated the First Amendment” when it leaned on platforms to moderate some content, the new ruling says CISA violates the Constitution.

    “CISA used its frequent interactions with social media platforms to push them to adopt more restrictive policies on censoring election-related speech,” the three-judge panel wrote.

    “The platforms’ censorship decisions were made under policies that CISA has pressured them into adopting and based on CISA’s determination of the veracity of the flagged information,” they continued. “Thus, CISA likely significantly encouraged the platforms’ content-moderation decisions and thereby violated the First Amendment.”

    The plaintiffs in the suit, which include Missouri and Louisiana’s attorneys general, as well as several individual plaintiffs, had also asked the court to expand the scope in other ways, including by making it apply to some State Department officials. But the court’s new ruling was only modified to add CISA as an enjoined entity.

    The judges said they were pausing their new injunction for 10 days, and the Biden administration has the option of asking the Supreme Court to issue a more lasting pause on the modified ruling.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden maintains his domestic focus, even as Middle East crisis consumes his time | CNN Politics

    Biden maintains his domestic focus, even as Middle East crisis consumes his time | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The vast majority of President Joe Biden’s time at the White House this week has been spent confronting the crisis in Israel, including four phone calls with his Israeli counterpart and well north of a dozen briefings from his national security team.

    But, in a sign of the political crosscurrents, Biden has also been keeping most of his regularly scheduled programming, including a Rose Garden speech about “junk fees” and an address to a national group of firefighters.

    The balancing act continued Friday in Philadelphia, where Biden visited a port terminal to announce the locations of seven new regional hubs to manufacture hydrogen – an event the White House had been planning well before the horrors of last weekend’s Hamas attack and gave no thought to canceling.

    The dueling focuses – foreign and domestic – have at moments felt somewhat jarring. Biden’s outrage and fury at the images emerging from Israel has translated into some of his most forceful public speaking as president, making it somewhat dissonant to hear him deliver more routine speeches about airline fees, firefighter pay and the manufacture of hydrogen.

    They also reflect a governing reality for an incumbent president in the middle of a campaign: elections are rarely won on foreign policy, and keeping the world from spiraling into war is only one part of the job.

    Appearing overly focused abroad could be politically perilous for Biden, who was already contending with waning public support for the war in Ukraine. He may be a foreign policy president, but Americans still view the economy poorly, and his advisers continue to believe an economic message can break through.

    White House officials said they assessed Biden’s schedule following last weekend’s attacks and determined what events to maintain and which to cancel. They did scrap some of their plans and replaced them with remarks focused on Israel.

    The vast majority of Biden’s time in the residence and West Wing has been consumed by the foreign crisis. A White House list showed his briefings and phone calls stretching from morning until evening, including pre- and post-phone call meetings with his national security team following his conversations with Netanyahu and other regional leaders.

    Despite that focus, he has also made time for his domestic agenda. He met Thursday with a group of American business leaders, including executives at Target and IBM, to discuss “Bidenomics.”

    And officials left in place items like the junk fee event, which Biden used to appeal to Americans tired of seeing prices tick up due to hidden costs.

    “Folks are tired of being taken advantage of and played for suckers,” Biden said during remarks in the Rose Garden.

    One of Biden’s potential – though, according to polls, unlikely – Republicans challengers thought the moment seemed off.

    “I don’t know why Joe Biden is doing press conferences in the Rose Garden talking about something other than America’s role as leader of the free world and the fact that there are Americans being held hostage in Gaza,” former Vice President Mike Pence said in an interview on Fox News.

    The White House says Biden’s role is multifold and requires his attention across areas foreign and domestic. He’s also due to deliver remarks at a wind power facility in Pueblo, Colorado, on Monday.

    “The president is going to make Americans a priority. He has to do multiple things at once. That’s what you’re going to see the president do,” press secretary Karine Jean Pierre said Thursday.

    “He’s going to continue to talk about what he’s doing to bring back manufacturing, to create good-paying jobs,” she said. “That’s something that Americans also want to hear from (him).”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump may try to move the Fulton County criminal case to federal court. Here’s why | CNN Politics

    Trump may try to move the Fulton County criminal case to federal court. Here’s why | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Just hours after former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was dealt state charges accusing him, along with 18 other defendants including Donald Trump, of taking part in a broad criminal conspiracy to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results, he mounted an effort to move his case to federal court.

    The former president is also expected to try to move the case to federal court, according to multiple sources familiar with his legal team’s thinking.

    The attempt to transfer his case from the Superior Court in Fulton County, Georgia, to the federal court for the US Northern District of Georgia – a process officially referred to as “removal” – is the first in what is expected to be a series of major pre-trial issues District Attorney Fani Willis must navigate as she pursues convictions against the 19 defendants.

    Successfully transferring their cases to federal court could provide some key advantages.

    For starters, litigating the effort could help delay things, a strategy Trump has employed time and time and time and time again.

    Should the case actually go to trial in the federal court, Trump and Meadows or others could end up with a jury pool more sympathetic than the one they might get from around Atlanta, where the state courthouse for this case is based. The district that includes Fulton County also includes the heavily Republican northern part of the state.

    And if the case is removed to federal court and goes to trial, the limits of Georgia’s RICO statute – which has been used aggressively and successfully by Willis – could be under the microscope of a federal judge, who would be able to field novel legal challenges to it by a defendant.

    “There’s very few cases in Georgia interpreting the RICO statute,” said Andrew Fleischman, a Georgia criminal defense attorney, adding that a successful removal in this case would allow a federal judge to “ask a bunch of questions” about the 1980 state law.

    Other advantages include the fact that unlike the Fulton County courtroom where the proceedings are expected to unfold, cameras are not allowed in federal courts, something that could be advantageous for Trump, who is running for president again.

    Trump and Meadows could also argue in federal court that they are protected because their efforts were part of their official duties as president and White House chief of staff, respectively.

    Some major questions over the removal possibility loom large, including whether a successful removal bid would transfer the entire case of 19 people to federal court or if it would allow the defendant to sever their case from the others, with some remaining in state court.

    Just as with the criminal case charging people with trying to overturn an election, there is very little precedent here for judges to follow.

    While there have been ample removal proceedings in civil cases, and the case law in that scenario is very well established, “criminal removal is very rare – especially in cases with multiple defendants,” said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor, who clerked for the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Georgia.

    Clark Cunningham, a law professor at Georgia State University, said he believes “the whole indictment moves as one.”

    “And of course, that’s going to be fine with the other defendants, they would rather be in federal court. They would rather have things move slowly. The question would be would the district attorney then try to sever out the people that were not federal (employees),” he said. “Those things remain to be seen.”

    Willis said on Monday that she plans to try the 19 defendants together, so fighting the removal request will likely be a top priority for her office in the coming days and weeks. That alone could upset her hopes to bring the case to trial next March.

    Meadows, in a court document filed Tuesday afternoon, argued that Willis’ case against him should be transferred to district court that includes Fulton County because the alleged conduct of his that creates the basis of Willis’ charges was done as part of his job as the last White House chief of staff during Trump’s tenure.

    He’s citing a federal law that allows civil action or criminal prosecution to be removed to federal court if the lawsuit or prosecution relates to conduct performed “under color” of a US office or agency.

    Willis accused Meadows of participating in a number of the 161 “overt acts” that make up the RICO charge, including traveling to a site in Cobb County, Georgia, where a ballot audit was taking place so he could “observe the signature match audit being performed there … despite the fact that the audit process was not open to the public.”

    He’s also being accused of breaking state law when he took part in a January 2021 phone call that included Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which Meadows and Trump urged Raffensperger to take part in the fake electors scheme.

    “Nothing Mr. Meadows is alleged in the indictment to have done is criminal per se: arranging Oval Office meetings, contacting state officials on the President’s behalf, visiting a state government building, and setting up a phone call for the President. One would expect a Chief of Staff to the President of the United States to do these sorts of things,” Meadows’ filing states.

    District Judge Steve Jones, an appointee of Barack Obama, has scheduled a hearing for August 28 on the issue.

    Though Meadows was the first defendant in the Fulton County case to mount a removal bid, he likely won’t be the last.

    In addition to Trump, the former president’s ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani – who also faces 13 charges in the case – argued during his radio show on Tuesday that the same law Meadows cited in his filing “almost an automatic removal” to federal court.

    “As a person acting as (Trump’s) agent – that’s what a lawyer is, his agent – I have a right to remove it to federal court,” Giuliani said, arguing some of the other defendants could also make similar removal claims.

    For Trump, a potential removal bid won’t be a new exercise. The former president attempted the same thing in the hush money criminal case brought against him in New York, but a federal judge rejected that effort last month. Trump has pleaded not guilty in that case.

    Legal experts told CNN that Trump’s arguments for removal in the Georgia matter would likely be stronger than the ones he put forth in New York, but that his case for removal likely won’t be ironclad.

    “Every one of the alleged crimes he did as a candidate, not as president, in my opinion,” said Clark Cunningham, a law professor at Georgia State University. “But he does have an argument. And it’s going to have to be heard out in the federal courts.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link