Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Ben Rhodes
(Getty Images)
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes
must answer written questions about the State Department's response to
the deadly 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, as part of an ongoing
legal battle over whether Hillary Clinton sought to deliberately evade
public record laws by using a private email server while secretary of
state.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth denied a request by
the conservative group Judicial Watch to make Rice and Rhodes sit for
depositions, but agreed to have them answer written questions. He also
agreed to Judicial Watch's request to depose the State Department about
the preparation of talking points for Rice, then President Barack
Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, ahead of appearances on
political talk shows the Sunday following the attack. That deposition is
part of Judicial Watch's inquiry into whether the State Department
acted in bad faith by not telling a court for months that they had asked
in mid-2014 for missing emails to be returned. CLINTON'S USE OF PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER AMONG 'GRAVEST' OFFENSES TO TRANSPARENCY, JUDGE SAYS
Rice
initially claimed on several talk shows that the attack on the U.S.
Consulate in Benghazi was triggered by protests over an anti-Islam
video. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
"Rice's talking points and
State's understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in
this case," Lamberth wrote in a 16-page order.
Lamberth added
that "State's role in the [talking] points' content and development
could shed light on Clinton's motives for shielding her emails from
[Freedom of Information Act] requesters or on State's reluctance to
search her emails."
Lamberth also allowed Judicial Watch to seek
written answers from Bill Priestap, the former assistant director of the
FBI's Counterintelligence Division. Priestap, who supervised the
bureau's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server,
retired from government service at the end of last year.
“In
a major victory for accountability, Judge Lamberth today authorized
Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system
evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping
Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
“Today, Judicial Watch issued document requests and other discovery to
the State Department about the Clinton email scandal. Next up, we will
begin questioning key witnesses under oath.”
The judge's order
amounts to approval of a discovery plan he ordered last month. In that
ruling, Lamberth wrote that Clinton's use of a private email account was
"one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency" and
said the response of the State and Justice Departments "smacks of
outrageous misconduct."
As
part of the discovery, Judicial Watch can depose Jacob Sullivan,
Clinton's former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, and Justin
Cooper, a longtime Bill Clinton aide who helped arrange the setup of
Hillary Clinton's private email address and server.
Judicial Watch
said the discovery period will conclude within 120 days. A
post-discovery hearing will then be held to determine whether additional
witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl
Mills, may be deposed.
President Trump’s nominee for attorney general William Barr told
senators during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday that he supports
the president’s call for new barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border,
while departing from the president’s public stances on the Russia probe.
The
hearing ended Tuesday evening with few fireworks, and Barr appeared
likely to sail to confirmation in the Republican-controlled Senate. Even
so, some Democrats sounded the alarm, with Connecticut Democratic Sen.
Richard Blumenthal charging that Barr had indicated he would exploit
legal "loopholes" to hide Special Counsel Robert Mueller's final report
from the public and to resist subpoenas against the White House.
"I
will commit to providing as much information as I can, consistent with
the regulations," Barr had told Blumenthal, when asked if he would
ensure that Mueller's full report was publicly released.
South
Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Judiciary
Committee, said afterwards that he was satisfied that Barr was the
"right man for the job." He added that Democrats had asked appropriate
questions -- in stark contrast to what he called the "sham" that occured during the confirmation hearings of now-Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
"I
voted for Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch — not because I agreed with
their political philosophy or policy positions — but because I thought
they were qualified," Graham said in a statement Tuesday evening,
referring to the two Obama-appointed attorneys general. "I’m asking no
more of Democrats than I asked of myself. I am hopeful Democrats will
support this fine man."
Barr faced an array of questions on topics
ranging from criminal justice to immigration. Asked about the ongoing
partial federal government shutdown, Barr said, "I would like to see a
deal reached whereby Congress recognizes that it's imperative to have
border security, and part of border security, as a common sense
matter, involves barriers.”
Barr said a “barrier system across the border” is needed for stopping illegal immigration and the “influx of drugs."
Attorney General nominee William Barr thanks his grandson Liam
Daly, right, for a mint as he returns from a break in testimony at a
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington,
Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019. As he did almost 30 years ago, Barr is appearing
before the Senate Judiciary Committee to make the case he's qualified
to serve as attorney general. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
But Barr – who pledged during Tuesday’s confirmation
hearing to not interfere with Mueller's Russia investigation – also
asserted his independence from Trump on statements related to the probe.
Under
questioning, Barr said he doesn’t believe “Mueller would be involved in
a witch hunt” – something the president has repeatedly argued. Barr
said he has known Mueller “personally and professionally for 30 years,”
having worked together at the Justice Department.
“That’s why I
said… I don’t subscribe to this ‘lock her up’ stuff,” Barr said at one
point, referring to a common chant at Trump's campaign rallies that
refers usually to Hillary Clinton.
He also said former Attorney
General Jeff Sessions was right to recuse himself from the Russia
investigation because of his role in the 2016 campaign, something that
infuriated the president and helped lead to Sessions' removal last year.
Barr
also unequivocally said he believes Russia attempted to interfere with
the election and said he supports an investigation "to get to bottom of
it."
“I will follow the Special Counsel regulations scrupulously
and in good faith, and on my watch, Bob will be allowed to complete his
work,” Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Attorney General nominee William Barr testifies during a Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan.
15, 2019. As he did almost 30 years ago, Barr is appearing before the
Senate Judiciary Committee to make the case he's qualified to serve as
attorney general. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
But Barr also staked out positions that will be
welcomed by Trump, including his commitment to look into anti-Trump bias
at the FBI during the 2016 campaign. The nominee said he was “shocked”
by the anti-Trump texts that were famously sent between FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
The
White House expressed its support for Barr in a statement Tuesday, with
press secretary Sarah Sanders telling Fox News, "He is a very honorable
man, doing what he believes – and the president respects that. The
president thinks he will be a great Attorney General.”
Graham
kicked off Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for Barr by saying the Justice
Department needs a new leader to “right the ship over there.”
“We’ve
got a lot of problems at the Department of Justice,” Graham said.
“Morale is low and we need to change that. I look forward to this
hearing. You will be challenged. You should be challenged.”
Barr, 68, was nominated by the president to lead the Justice Department in December, after Sessions resigned at Trump’s request in November.
Barr
previously served as attorney general from 1991 to 1993, and his
confirmation hearings nearly 30 years ago went off largely without
incident.
During the hearing, Barr's past comments about the Mueller investigation attracted scrutiny, including an unsolicited memo
he sent the Justice Department last year criticizing the special
counsel's inquiry into whether Trump had sought to obstruct
justice. Barr, as head of the Justice Department, would take over from
acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker and oversee Mueller's work.
“The memo, there will be a lot of talk about it, as there should be,” Graham said.
Ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the memo raises questions about Barr's approach to the Russia probe.
“Importantly,
the attorney general must be willing to resist political pressure and
be committed to protecting this investigation,” Feinstein said.
Barr sought to explain the memo, telling lawmakers he distributed it so “other lawyers would have the benefit of my views.”
“The
memo did not address – or in any way question – the special counsel’s
core investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election,” Barr
said. “Nor did it address other potential obstruction-of-justice
theories or argue, as some have erroneously suggested, that a president
can never obstruct justice.”
Attorney General nominee William Barr, right, testifies during a
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington,
Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019. Barr will face questions from the Senate
Judiciary Committee on Tuesday about his relationship with Trump, his
views on executive powers and whether he can fairly oversee the special
counsel's Russia investigation. Barr served as attorney general under
George H.W. Bush. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Democrats on the committee asked questions about his
past relationship with the president. Barr acknowledged meeting Trump
once in 2017, saying he made clear his disinterest at the time in
joining Trump’s legal private legal team because “I didn’t want to stick
my head into that meat grinder."
Asked by Illinois Sen. Dick
Durbin about the hypothetical of being pressured into doing something he
disagreed with, Barr replied, “I will not be bullied into doing
anything that is wrong by anybody, whether it be editorial boards,
Congress or the president. I’m going to do what I think is right.”
Barr
was introduced Tuesday by former Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a former
longtime member of the committee who retired and was replaced by Sen.
Mitt Romney this year.
It’s
the first major Judiciary Committee hearing since the dramatic
testimony last year during the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice
Brett Kavanaugh. Several Democratic senators thought to be potential presidential contenders in 2020 -- including Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Amy Klobuchar -- are among those questioning Barr.
To
be confirmed, Barr will need to garner a simple majority of votes in
the Senate. Republicans currently hold 53 of the Senate's 100 seats.
As a new caravan that began in Honduras
and quickly swelled to an estimated 2,000 people made its way toward
Mexico on Tuesday, Mexicans who live along the border towns that will
likely be most affected took to the Internet to lash out against another
wave of migrants.
“Work? Yes, there might be work for people who
actually want to work, not for the lazy bums looking for entitlements,”
said one commenter, with the screen name Azucena Santos, in Spanish on a
YouTube page belonging to Shialeweb, who was recording the caravan. “Poor Mexicans, what’s in store for you!”
Juan
Palomina remarked: “Now look, let’s see if whacko [Mexican President}
Lopez Obrador mobilizes the Marines and keeps these idiots from coming
to Mexico. Give them enough to eat, at least.”
Some urged the migrants not to be blindly optimistic.
“People
of Honduras, all of you who are spinning these grand illusions and
getting ready to come on this caravan and in any future others, before
you leave your country, please inform yourself about how people who’ve
already come on previous caravans are faring in Tijuana,” said Belem
Gonzales.
“Mexico is just like your country,” Gonzales added.
“There are many problems and needs, and you’re not going to be much
better off than you were in Honduras. Please don’t trust these
manipulative agitators who are encouraging you to risk everything for
nothing.”
Luis Mendez was far more unwelcoming. “We do not want
caravans of (emojis of rats). Fight conditions in your own country. You
are not welcome here.”
By Tuesday afternoon, a caravan that
started with about 500 people grew to about 2,000, according to a
representative from the Honduras National Commission of Human Rights,
which travels with the caravan.
Word of the caravan’s departure was out at least as far back as last week. The newspaper La Prensa, of Honduras, reported on Jan. 9 that a caravan was scheduled to leave from San Pedro Sula on Tuesday - though the first group left the evening before.
Migrants hoping to reach the U.S. wait in line to board a bus
toward Honduras' border with Guatemala, as hundreds of migrants set off
by bus or on foot from a main bus station in San Pedro Sula, Honduras,
late Monday, Jan. 14, 2019. Yet another caravan of Central American
migrants set out Monday from Honduras, seeking to reach the U.S. border
following the same route followed by thousands on at least three
caravans last year. (AP Photo/Delmer Martinez)
The newspaper attributed the information to the
immigration advocacy group “Pueblos Sin Fronteras,” or “Communities
Without Borders,” as well as to “Dignificacion Humana,” or “Dignifying
Humans.” Both groups said that some 4,000 migrants in all would end up
being part of the caravan.
The hostile social media comments on
Tuesday are the latest reflection of tensions that have simmered since
the caravans began last year. The tension is particularly prevalent in
Mexican cities like Tijuana, where many of the migrants are being held
in overcrowded shelters.
Some say the concerns by people in
receiving communities are, even if pointed, understandable. But others
say the migrants deserve compassion for trying to flee conditions –
often life-threatening – they did not create, and cannot control.
The
mix of exasperated migrants in overtaxed shelters and Mexican residents
growing increasingly concerned about strains on communities has led to a
number of clashes. In November, for instance, about 300 Tijuana
residents held an anti-caravan demonstration at the same time Central
American migrants were holding a protest. The dueling demonstrations
ended in a huge fight, with police stepping in and escorting the
migrants to various shelters.
On its website, the immigrant
advocacy group “Consejo Noruego para los Refugiados,” which is based in
Colombia and has various offices in Latin America, decried the backlash
against the caravan on “growing xenophobia in the U.S., as well as in
Mexico.”
“The journey north will be extremely dangerous and taxing
for thousands of families from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala that
will be part of the trips in 2019," the group said. "Probably the
obstacles will increase along the journey, given that there’s fatigue
and frustration in the communities that have until now supported the
caravans.”
Several migrants told U.S. and Latin American news
outlets they were determined to flee the poverty and violence in their
homeland - no matter how tough U.S. immigration policy had become. Some
said they were deported after having taken part in the first caravan
last year, and were trying their luck again.
Hondurans take part in a new caravan of migrants, set to head to
the United States, as they leave San Pedro Sula, Honduras January 14,
2019. REUTERS/Jorge Cabrera - RC1E08C0C6A0
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Honduran authorities arrested and detained Juan Carlos Molina, identified by La Prensa, the Honduran newspaper, as a coordinator of the latest caravan.
Ira
Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform,
which supports tighter enforcement, said the departure of another
caravan was not surprising, considering indications there are
individuals or organizations coordinating them. “Probably there are
multiple parties involved, who have an interest in challenging the
sovereign right of the United States to determine who can enter the
country and under what circumstances,” he said.
“You have
opportunists and you have people who, understandably, want to come to
the United States,” he said, “It’s a situation that’s getting out of
hand, and no one is doing anything about it other than an administration
that trying to solve things through executive action.”
Mehlman
said the backlash the caravans were getting from Mexicans who live in
Tijuana and other areas affected by the large crowds of migrants was a
logical reaction to the feeling of being overrun. “It does have an
impact on people who live in the affected towns, just as it has impact
on people in our country,” he said, adding that at the same time that
understanding is extended to people who seek a better life, there needs
to be understanding for “the motivations of people who want to set
limits and enforce laws.”
Frank Bruni is tortured.
The liberal New York Times columnist says it in print: "Trump tortures us."
And
he's got an elaborate plan for journalists to prevent Donald Trump from
being reelected — to "redeem ourselves," he says — because obviously
"we" never should have allowed him to win the White House in the first
place.
Bruni is a good writer, but he seems to fundamentally
misunderstand the role of the press and the president's use of the
press. He’s an opinion guy but comes from the camp that Trump is such a
monumental threat that the news business must drop its usual standards
and expose him.
His piece comes at a time when the president is
under fire on several fronts, including the longest government shutdown
in history. The Times just dropped a piece that the FBI opened a counterintelligence probe of Trump after the Jim Comey firing, and CNN now has transcripts of the internal debate. The Washington Post just reported
that Trump shielded details of his conversations with Vladimir Putin
from top aides, in one case grabbing an interpreter's notes.
Trump,
for his part, tweeted yesterday that "the Fake News gets crazier and
more dishonest every single day," that "certain people" have "truly gone
MAD" and should take two weeks off and "chill!"
In his lengthy
piece, Bruni rails against the president's "talent for using us as
vessels for propaganda," making us "Trump's accomplice," as if no other
president or politician has done that.
He
says Trump was a "perverse gift" to the media, which would just
"present him as the high-wire act and car crash that he is; the audience
gorges on it."
Let me stop right there. While the media lavished
endless attention on candidate Trump, much of it was negative attention,
which helped him anyway. He also generated coverage by doing hundreds
of interviews, even when he was on the defensive, in stark contrast to
his GOP opponents and to Hillary Clinton.
Bruni contends that
Trump's tweets and theatrics get so much attention that voters are
"starved of information about the fraudulence of his supposed populism
and the toll of his incompetence."
Really? The papers, the TV, and
the web are filled with that stuff every day. While covering style over
substance has been a media shortcoming for decades, especially on the
tube, no sentient human being can be unaware of all the arguments
against Trump on the shutdown, the wall, the Mueller probe, Syria, White
House chaos, and on and on.
In another 2016 lament, Bruni says
"we interpreted fairness as a similarly apportioned mix of complimentary
and derogatory stories about each contender, no matter how different
one contender's qualifications." In short, why did the press spend so
much time on Hillary's private e-mail server (which by the way was under
FBI investigation) when Trump was clearly the morally deficient one?
He
quotes ex-Times editor Jill Abramson as saying the email scandal
(broken by the Times) now seems like a "small thing" and that she didn't
turn the full investigative machinery against Trump because she assumed
Clinton would win.
Bruni
somehow didn't have room for Abramson's conclusion in her forthcoming
book, "Merchants of Truth" (as I reported), that she finds the Times'
news coverage to be "unmistakably anti-Trump." Guess that was an
inconvenient fact.
Still, Bruni does give a nod to the central
flaw in his argument: "I'm not certain that more firepower would have
made a difference. For one thing, there were many exposes of Trump's
shady history. For another, he appealed to voters who largely disregard
the mainstream media and who thrilled to his exhortations that they
disregard it further."
And he retreats to this: "The real story of
Trump isn't his amorality and outrageousness. It’s Americans'
receptiveness to that." In other words, the Trump phenomenon is the
fault of those gullible voters who just aren't as smart as members of
the media elite.
Finally,
Bruni says the media must give a full introduction to Trump's
Democratic challengers, which makes sense, as long as he doesn't mean an
uncritical one. But he disputes the notion that these candidates must
be vivid enough "to steal some of his spotlight," because we — the
mighty media — "can direct that spotlight where we want."
And
that's troubling. It's actually the job of the Democratic candidates to
make the case against Trump, and find ways to drive media coverage, and
our job to cover both sides fairly and aggressively. Unless, of course,
you believe that the incumbent is so terrible that it’s the media's
mission to ensure he doesn't win again.
President Donald Trump talks to the media about the table full
of fast food in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington,
Monday, Jan. 14, 2019, for the reception for the Clemson Tigers. (AP
Photo/Susan Walsh)
What do you feed a pack of victorious
Tigers? If you're President Trump and the Tigers in question are the
college football playoff champion Clemson Tigers, the answer is obvious.
"We
ordered American fast food, paid for by me. Lots of hamburgers, lots of
pizza," Trump told reporters Monday evening after returning to the
White House from New Orleans. "We have some very large people that like
eating, so I think we're going to have a little fun."
Clemson, led by head coach Dabo Swinney,
won their second national championship in three seasons on Jan. 7 by
blowing out the top-ranked Alabama Crimson Tide 44-16 in Santa Clara,
Calif. With the win, Clemson completed the first 15-0 colege football
season since the 1897 Penn Quakers.
Guests attending a reception for the Clemson Tigers grab fast food
sandwiches in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington,
Monday, Jan. 14, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
The players were greeted by a White House smorgasbord
unlike any other. Silver trays held stacks of wrapped burgers from
Wendy's. Also on offer were boxed burgers from McDonald's, including Big
Macs. White House cups bearing the presidential seal held French fries
White
House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said much of the White House
residence staff has been furloughed due to the ongoing partial
government shutdown, ""so the president is personally paying for the
event to be catered with some of everyone's favorite fast foods."
Guests attending a reception for the Clemson Tigers grab fast food
sandwiches in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington,
Monday, Jan. 14, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Pizzas, some topped with olives and tomatoes, also
were on the menu. Silver bowls held the condiments, and stacks of white
plates sat nearby. Several young men were spotted eating multiple
burgers at the standup tables dotting the East Room.
The president is a noted fast food fan, particularly McDonald's and Wendy's.
“I’m
a very clean person. I like cleanliness, and I think you’re better off
going there than maybe someplace that you have no idea where the food’s
coming from. It’s a certain standard,” he said in a 2016 interview.
“I think the food’s good,” he added.
The
Clemson team's visit is its second since Trump took office. The Tigers
last visited in June 2017 after their championship run the previous
season.
Swinney has nominated this season's undefeated Tigers as
the best college team ever. Trump called them a "great team, an
unbelievable team."
Guests attending a reception for the Clemson Tigers grab fast food
sandwiches in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington,
Monday, Jan. 14, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Trump has routinely sparred with professional
athletes during his two years in office. College football has managed to
avoid such political controversies, with last year's champion Alabama
also visiting the White House.
Amid the longest government shutdown in
the country’s history, President Donald Trump may not win the battle
over who’s to blame, argued The Federalist publisher Ben Domenech.
Last
month, President Trump told Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., that he’d be “proud” to shut down
the government over border security. On Monday, he took to Twitter and
claimed that it was the Democrats fault.
However, in a recent ABC
News/Washington Post poll, 53 percent of Americans blame Trump and
Republicans for the partial government shutdown while 29 percent blame
Democrats. Only 13 percent say both are equally responsible.
On
the Special Report “All-Star” panel Monday night, Domenech, along with
Fox News politics editor Chris Stirewalt, and Georgetown Institute of
Politics executive director Mo Elleithee all weighed on who the current
state of the political showdown.
“I think the
president needs to lean more into the argument about what the Democrats’
position really is, which is that they believe this wall is immoral
because they now believe that borders are immoral or at least a
significant portion of their base does. Put them in that position and
lean into that argument more because I think this internal conventional
wisdom question about who’s to blame for the shutdown he’s not going to
win.” — Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist
Domenech began by expressing that the “Who’s to blame?” question regarding the shutdown is the “wrong question to be asking.”
“This
is not about the money. This is about sending a message, a message in
this case by the president to his base that ‘Yes, I am after two years
of sort of not dealing with this promise, the biggest promise that I
made, going to deal with this’ and the message from Democratic
leadership to their base that they’re not going to show up in Washington
and have their first act to be to bend over to this president on his
signature issue,” Domenech told the panel.
“I think the president
needs to lean more into the argument about what the Democrats’ position
really is, which is that they believe this wall is immoral because they
now believe that borders are immoral or at least a significant portion
of their base does. Put them in that position and lean into that
argument more because I think this internal conventional wisdom question
about who’s to blame for the shutdown he’s not going to win.”
The
Federalist publisher later added that there’s “no incentive” for the
president to back down in this political battle and that it will take “a
lot more time and a lot more pain” before both sides can compromise.
Mo
Elleithee noted that Democrats are currently winning in the “PR wars”
since most Americans are blaming Trump and the GOP that they’re sticking
to their stance that the government must be reopened in order to move
on with talks over the border.
Meanwhile, Chris Stirewalt told the
panel that Republicans should have had a “tailor-made” response to
Democrats who were vacationing in Puerto Rico last week amid the
shutdown but that never happened and that their argument is getting
repetitive.
“There are great avenues that Republicans could be
following to keep the pressure on Democrats, but they do not. We hear
the same thing over and over again. ‘There’s a crisis at the border.
There’s a crisis at the border.’ And everybody agrees, but we’re still
talking about the same thing,” Stirewalt said. “Democrats are at $1.6
billion, Republicans are at $5.7 billion, and no one has budged in
either direction. The Republicans haven’t gone down, the Democrats
haven’t gone up, and here we sit.”
Allyson Kennedy, 68, who was a 2016 presidential candidate, is running for mayor of Dallas, a report said on Monday.
(U.S. Census Bureau)A 2016 presidential candidate from the Socialist Workers Party is running for mayor of Dallas, a report said Monday.
Allyson
Kennedy, 68, who was on the ballots in seven states as the Socialist
Workers Party candidate in 2016, said she wants to replace term-limited
Mayor Mike Rawlings, the Dallas Morning News reported.
“When
we get out and share our message, it resonates with a lot of people in
our society right now,” Kennedy said, according to the paper. “And I
think that’s because the system we have in place — at all levels of
government — serves the needs of a tiny minority.”
Kennedy, who
said she moved to Dallas in early 2018, faces seven other candidates in
the mayoral race, the Morning News reported.
She is a native of
Indianapolis, where was part of the first wave of female coal miners in
the U.S., the report said. She's been involved with trade-union
organizing for forty years, including for mine workers.
Kennedy also said she currently works at a Walmart, according to the paper.
