Saturday, March 4, 2017
South by Southwest faces firestorm of scrutiny over immigration clause in contract
Uproar over language in the contract for performers at the South by Southwest music festival in Texas will force the event’s organizers to review the documents for next year and future shows.
The outcry came after Told Slant, a New York City-based band, said they were pulling out of the Austin-based festival because of the language in the contract, which reportedly states that the festival can take action if international acts “adversely affect the viability” of their performance.
If international performers break the rules, “South by Southwest (SXSW) will notify the appropriate U.S. immigration authorities of the above actions. International Artists entering the country through the Visa Waiver Program, B visa, or any non-work visa may not perform at any public or non-sanctioned SXSW Music Festival DAY OR NIGHT shows in Austin from March 13-10, 2017. Accepting and performing unofficial events may result in immediate deportation, revoked passport and denied entry by U.S. Customs Border Patrol at U.S. ports of entry.”
The band said they were not interested in aligning themselves with a place that interacts with immigration officials as a means of “controlling where art is shared and performed,” according to the Houston Chronicle.
"This festival uses an imperialist model and prioritizes centralizing and packaging culture over communities and people's safety. It's no secret that SXSW has played a huge role in the process (of) Austin's rapid gentrification. The whole festival exists to the detriment of working class people and people of color in Austin," the band said.
THIS WEEK IN PICTURES
Felix Walworth, a Told Slant band member, also urged other bands to boycott the show.
South by Southwest organizers responded to the uproar Thursday, saying the language in the contract has been set since 2013 and had only recently began receiving attention.
"In this political climate, especially as it relates to immigration, we recognize the heightened importance of standing together against injustice," organizers wrote in a statement on their website. "SXSW has never reported anyone to any immigration authorities, including Customs & Border Protection (CBP), the agency that deals with participating artists entering the United States ... The language in our Performance Agreement is intended to facilitate U.S. entry for international artists and to show CBP that SXSW takes visa issues seriously. This language has been part of the contracts since the summer of 2013, and we will be reviewing and amending it for 2018 and beyond."
Festival officials added that the langue was not aligned with President Trump’s policies on immigration and went as far as saying it was against the president’s travel ban.
"We have been coordinating with international acts coming to SXSW to try and mitigate issues at U.S. ports of entry, and will continue to build a coalition of attorneys to assist any who face problems upon arrival in the States," organizers said.
The music festival is still facing scrutiny despite its attempts to quell the firestorm.
Downtown Boys’ Victoria Ruiz and Joey L. De Francesco sent an open letter to the organization expressing its outrage. It was co-signed by Killer Mike, Ted Leo, Screaming Females, Kimya Dawson and Ceremony, according to Rolling Stone.
Downtown Boys, Evan Greer and Priests also accused South by Southwest of “playing into the xenophobia emanating from the White House.”
"Starting a brawl in a club is already illegal. If an artist were to do that, there is a clear way that the legal system and immigration officials would deal with it. There is no need for a contract clause like this to prevent that, and absolutely nothing requiring SXSW to narc on bands who are at risk for deportation,” the group said in a statement to the music magazine.
Still, South by Southwest maintains the language was meant to inform international acts that if they performed at another show other than the Austin music festival, they could be in violation of the law.
Keystone pipeline won't use US steel despite Trump pledge
The Keystone XL oil pipeline won't use American steel in its construction, despite what President Donald Trump says.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Friday that's due to language in a presidential directive Trump issued in January.
"The way that executive order is written, it’s specific to new pipelines or those that are being repaired, Sanders said. "And since this one is already currently under construction, the steel is already literally sitting there, it would be hard to go back. But I know that everything moving forward would fall under that executive order."
The directive applies to new pipelines or those under repair. Sanders said it would be hard to do an about-face on Keystone because it's already under construction and the steel has been acquired.
Trump said as recently as last week that Keystone and the Dakota Access pipeline must use American steel "or we're not building one."
Trump used his executive powers shortly after taking office to greenlight the two pipeline projects that had been blocked by President Barack Obama.
The Keystone pipeline would run from Canada to refineries in the Gulf Coast. The Dakota Access line would move North Dakota oil to Illinois, and that project is nearly complete.
Trump slams Pelosi, Schumer as Russia meeting pics emerge
President Trump got to work exacting revenge Friday on top Democratic lawmakers for demanding his attorney general's resignation over past meetings with Russia's ambassador -- after pictures emerged of the same lawmakers in similar meetings, exposing them to "hypocrisy" charges.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in particular, has egg on her face after she told Politico reporters that she had never met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
“Not with this ambassador, no,” she said.
But Politico unearthed a 2010 photo from a meeting of congressional lawmakers with then-Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev, at which both Pelosi and Kislyak were present.
Though a spokesman said she meant “she has never had a private one-on-one with him,” Republicans were quick to accuse her of misleading the public.
After earlier swiping at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Trump tweeted: "I hereby demand a second investigation, after Schumer, of Pelosi for her close ties to Russia, and lying about it." (Trump posted three versions of the same tweet, after earlier versions included a misspelling.)
“Nancy Pelosi’s hypocrisy and utter disregard for the truth has gummed up the Democratic Party’s faux outrage machine. She owes an explanation for why she knowingly misled the American public,” Jesse Hunt, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement.
Both Pelosi and Schumer had called for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign after it was revealed he met twice with Kislyak in 2016, despite telling lawmakers at his confirmation hearing he had no “communications” with Russian officials. Sessions has said he didn’t mislead Congress as he was answering in the context of discussions related to the Trump campaign.
Trump also pounced on Schumer Friday after a picture made the rounds online showing the New York senator chowing down on a donut with President Vladimir Putin in 2003.
The image had circulated as part of the conservative pushback against Democratic criticism of Sessions – with outlets noting that a number of Democratic lawmakers also had met with the ambassador in the past.
Trump accuses Obama administration of wiretapping Trump Tower phones
Trump
Tower is a 58-story, 664-foot-high mixed-use skyscraper located at
721–725 Fifth Avenue between 56th and 57th Streets in Midtown Manhattan,
New York City. Wikipedia
Address: 725 5th Ave, New York, NY 10022
Height: 664′
Floors: 58
Opened: February 14, 1983
|
President Trump made a startling claim Saturday that former President Barack Obama had Trump Tower phones tapped in the weeks before the November 2016 election.
In early Saturday morning tweets that began at 6:35 a.m., the president said the alleged wiretapping was “McCarthyism” and “Nixon/Watergate.”
“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism,” Trump wrote.
“Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!” he said in another tweet.
Trump also tweeted that a “good lawyer could make a great case of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!”
“How low has President Obama gone to tap (sic) my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergage. Bad (or sick) guy!” Trump tweeted.
Trump does not specify how he uncovered the Obama administration's alleged wiretapping; however, he could be referencing a Breitbart article posted Friday about a segment by radio host Mark Levin, who spoke about the alleged steps taken by the Obama administration to undermine the Trump campaign.
He made a reference to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) request made by the former adminsitration in June 2016 to monitor communications involving Trump and several advisers. It was denied.
During his Saturday morning tweets, Trump also brought up the ongoing controversy surrounding Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his reported meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in 2016.
He said the first meeting between the former Senator and Kislyak was arranged by the Obama administration.
Trump then said Kislayk also visited the White House 22 times during the Obama administration.
“Just out: The same Russian Ambassador that met Jess Sessions visited the Obama White House 22 times, and 4 times last year alone,” he wrote.
On Friday, Trump fought back against top Democratic lawmakers who are demanding his attorney general's resignation over past meetings with Russia's ambassador -- after pictures emerged of the same lawmakers in similar meetings, exposing them to "hypocrisy" charges.
Trump tweeted: "I hereby demand a second investigation, after Schumer, of Pelosi for her close ties to Russia, and lying about it.
Friday, March 3, 2017
Oregon judge faces scrutiny for allegedly helping illegal immigrant escape ICE
An Oregon judge is being investigated after she allegedly helped an illegal immigrant elude ICE agents in January by guiding the man through a private entrance at the courthouse.
Multnomah County Judge Monica Heeranz was notified by court staff that ICE agents were waiting outside her courtroom to possibly apprehend Diddier Pacheco Salazar, a 22-year-old Mexican national attending a DUI hearing, U.S. Attorney Billy Willaims said.
Specific details about what happend inside the courtroom next is not clear. But Salazar reportedly somehow managed to leave the room using an employee exit.
"I prepped my client. I said, 'I don't know if they're going to pick you up outside or what, but here's how to prepare,'" John Schlosser, Salazar's court appointed lawyer, told a local paper. "After the court appearance, I went out in the hallway and sat. My client never came out. I can't say that I'm surprised he didn't come out, but I gave him his options, and assume he had to have been escorted out some other way."
Salazar was arrested two weeks after the incident.
ICE agents decided not to investigate Herranz, who is also on the board of directors of the Oregon Hispanic Bar Association, but Chief Judge Nan Waller is conducting an internal investigation.
Waller told Fox 12 Oregon she wants to figure out what happened before discussing the situation.
Williams calls Herranz’s alleged actions troubling.
“When you’re talking about the judicial system – whether it’s federal or by state – you have an expectation that people are going to abide by the law and not take steps based on their own motivations, their own politics – whatever the motivation was.”
Sessions: Meeting with Russian envoy 'hyped beyond reason'; criticism 'unfair'
Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" in an exclusive interview Thursday that conversations between him and the Russian ambassador to the U.S. had been "hyped beyond reason" by the media and criticism of them was "unfair."
"I don’t believe anybody that was in that meeting would have seen or believed I said one thing that was improper or unwise," Sessions told host Tucker Carlson. "It was really a sad thing to be attacked like that, but I think we’ve explained it and we intend to move forward."
Sessions spoke to Fox News hours after he recused himself from “any existing or future investigations” regarding the 2016 presidential campaign. Lawmakers from both parties had pressed Sessions to step away from an ongoing probe into Moscow meddling during last year's race for the White House.
Sessions has repeatedly denied meeting with Russian officials or operatives while a surrogate for then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign. He testified during his confirmation hearing in January that he had no “communications” with Russia during the campaign, an answer he later said was "honest and correct."
However, Sessions also said Thursday that he would submit a supplement to the record of his hearing that would cover his conversations with Russian envoy Sergey Kislyak
The attorney general told Carlson that he had intended to announce he was recusing himself from any investigation of the Trump campaign's connections with Russian figures even before the Washington Post revealed his meetings with Kislyak Wednesday night.
"I believe I should recuse myself," Sessions said, "because I was involved in the campaign to a degree [that] I think [it] would have been perceived that I wouldn’t be objective[ly] participating in an investigation that might involve the campaign."
Sessions added that his recusal was "not an admission of any wrongdoing" and said that he had acted "exactly correctly" in the matter.
In the interview, Sessions detailed his two encounters last year with Kislyak, one of which happened during the Republican Convention in Cleveland this past July.
"I spoke at the Republican convention at a conference with some 50 ambassadors," Sessions recalled. "After I spoke, I walked down from the podium and mingled with a number of people and we met at that occasion and had a chat, and I left shortly thereafter."
Sessions said the other, more involved discussion with Kislyak took place Sept. 8 in his office and was one of several meetings he took with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"We talked about a number of issues. One of them was the Ukraine and we had a disagreement over that," the attorney general said. "The Ukrainian ambassador had been into my office for a meeting the day before, and so we had a little disagreement over the Ukrainian issue. So we had a number of discussions like that."
Sessions said the meeting with Kislyak in his office was witnessed by two of his senior staffers, whom he described as "non-political."
"I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with a United States senator meeting with an ambassador from Russia," he said. "I learned something perhaps in that meeting – I usually did – and so that’s what happened. Ambassadors were coming by to see me pretty often."
Several top Democrats, for whom the revelations of any Russia discussions only served to fuel long-running accusations that Trump-tied officials have sought to conceal past contacts with Moscow, have called for Sessions' resignation, including the leaders in both the House and Senate. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., went so far as to say Sessions had “lied” to Congress and committed perjury.
Many Republicans jumped to Sessions’ defense, saying Democrats were engaged in political theater and describing Sessions’ meetings as routine.
President Trump defended Sessions as an "honest man" in a statement released late Thursday.
"He did not say anything wrong," Trump said. "He could have stated his response more accurately, but it was clearly not intentional. This whole narrative is a way of saving face for Democrats losing an election that everyone thought they were supposed to win."
New Interior Secretary Zinke reverses last-minute Obama lead-ammunition ban
WASHINGTON – On his first full day in office, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke issued an order Thursday reversing a last-minute action by the Obama administration to ban lead ammunition and fish tackle used on national wildlife refuges.
Gun-rights supporters condemned the earlier order — issued a day before Obama left office Jan. 20 — as nakedly political. The order was intended to protect birds from lead poisoning, the Obama administration said.
Zinke, a former Montana congressman and avid hunter, said the new order would increase hunting, fishing and recreation opportunities on lands managed by Fish and Wildlife Service.
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said Zinke's order "represents an important check on executive abuse and reverses what was a deliberate attack on Americans' fundamental rights and privileges" by the Obama administration.
The order reverses a decision by the Obama administration to phase out use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on wildlife refuges by 2022.
Zinke, who rode to work on a horse Thursday as a sign of solidarity with U.S. Park Police, said the hunting order and another order directing agencies to identify areas where recreation and fishing can be expanded were intended to boost outdoor recreation in all its forms.
"Outdoor recreation is about both our heritage and our economy," he said in a statement. "Between hunting, fishing, motorized recreation, camping and more, the industry generates thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity."
Over the past eight years, hunting and recreation enthusiasts have seen trails closed and dramatic decreases in access to public lands across the board, Zinke said. "It worries me to think about hunting and fishing becoming activities for the land-owning elite. This package of secretarial orders will expand access for outdoor enthusiasts and also make sure the community's voice is heard."
Environmental groups slammed the new directive on lead ammunition, arguing that spent lead casings cause poisoning in 130 species of birds and other animals.
Switching to nontoxic ammunition should be "a no-brainer" to save the lives of thousands of birds and other wildlife and to "prevent hunters and their families from being exposed to toxic lead and protect our water," said Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal director at the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity.
Evans called it ironic that one of the first actions by Zinke — a self-described champion of hunters and anglers — "leads to poisoning of game and waterfowl eaten by those same hunting families."
In possible response to Trump, EU parliament calls to end visa-free travel for US citizens
In what has been called a “visa war,” the European Union’s parliament on Thursday called on the bloc to force American tourists visiting Europe to first obtain visas because the U.S. excludes five EU countries from its no-visa policy.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the request is unlikely to change policy, but reflects “hostility among some European politicians to the Trump administration.”
The report said Parliament’s vote came six weeks into Trump’s presidency and after the legislature publically slammed Trump’s executive order banning travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries.
U.S. citizens can travel to all EU countries without visas but the U.S. hasn’t granted visa-free travel to citizens of Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania.
NEW TRAVEL BAN COMING IN DAYS, PENCE SAYS
The legislature urged the European Commission to act within two months. The Commission was legally bound to propose by last April that visas be reintroduced for U.S. citizens for 12 months but the 28-nation bloc’s member countries preferred to take no action.
The Commission has cautioned that suspending the visa waiver for Americans would also hurt trade, tourism and the European economy.
Dimitris Avramopoulos, the European home-affairs commissioner, traveled to Washington last month to talk about the issue. He wrote to The Journal: “As you know, our approach brought results with Canada. We will continue our engagement with the United States on this matter as well our broader cooperation on migration and security.”
He was referring to Canada’s decision to lift all remaining visa requirements for EU citizens by the end of the year.
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Sen. Rubio booted from Florida office building over rowdy protests
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., was evicted from his Florida office due to the weekly protests that have occurred outside the building.
Jude Williams, the president of America’s Capital Partners and the owner of the nine-story building in Tampa, notified Rubio’s office on Feb. 1 that it will not renew the lease. He said the rallies have become too disruptive to the other tenants and a costly security expense for the company.
"A professional office building is not a place for that," Williams told the Tampa Bay Times. “I understand their cause, but at the end of the day it was a security concern for us.”
Rubio’s office said it was looking for a new office space. The newspaper reported that Rubio’s lease expired in December and the office has been working on a month-to-month basis. Now, they have until Friday to leave the building and they do not have a new location in place.
"We are actively looking for new office space, and our goal is to remain accessible and continue providing prompt and efficient service to all Floridians," Christina Mandreucci, a Rubio spokeswoman, said in a statement to the Tampa Bay Times.
Several groups who oppose President Trump's agenda have gathered at least once a week at the building, lining up on the sidewalk to wave signs and shout messages.
Rubio's seven statewide offices have been lightning rods for demonstrations. Gatherings in front of the Tampa office have surpassed 150 people.
Williams said several of the building’s 21 tenants have complained about the protests. The demonstrations have blocked entranceways and have workers fearing for their safety.
"It's not political," he added. "It's for no other reason than good office management. Our duty is to keep a good peaceful office building environment for our tenants and that's not what they bargained for."
Rubio has other offices in Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville, Pensacola, Tallahassee and Palm Beach
Ex-Clinton volunteer slammed, loses job, after swipe at widow of fallen SEAL
A former Hillary Clinton volunteer drew swift condemnation -- and lost his job -- after mocking the widow of a fallen Navy SEAL who was honored by the president during his congressional address Tuesday night.
Dan Grilo, who said in his Twitter profile that he was a former volunteer for both Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama, made the remarks after Trump paid tribute to Carryn Owens. She is the widow of U.S. Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens, who was killed in a counterterrorism raid in Yemen last month.
“Our veterans have delivered for this nation—and now we must deliver for them,” Trump said, eliciting an extended standing ovation from the entire chamber for a visibly emotional Owens.
“Ryan died as he lived: a warrior, and a hero – battling against terrorism and securing our nation,” Trump said.
While widely regarded as the most powerful moment of the night, Grilo was not impressed. Responding to a tweet from L.A. Times reporter Matt Pearce, who noted that Owens was crying and overwhelmed, Grilo tweeted:
“Sorry, Owens' wife, you’re not helping yourself or your husband’s memory by standing there and clapping like an idiot. Trump just used you.”
The tweet quickly zipped around social media as commentators on both sides of the aisle were outraged by the swipe. Donald Trump Jr. called the tweet an example of “hatred from the other side."
Grilo followed up, apologizing for what we called a “poorly worded tweet.”
Grilo’s account soon went private, and was then deleted entirely. But the tweets were saved and archived by other Twitter users.
Grilo’s LinkedIn page says he works as a principal for the Chicago-based Liberty Advisor Group. But as of Wednesday morning, Grilo’s profile page on the site had been deleted, and the company later confirmed that an employee had sent what they called "an offensive and inappropriate tweet" regarding the Gold Star family.
In a statement, the company said that while the message was from his personal account, "his comments were inconsistent with the Company's values."
"Regardless of whether the comments in the tweet were intended to cause the hurt and anger that they ultimately generated, they were unacceptable to us, and the individual who issued the tweet is no longer affiliated with Liberty," the statement said.
New travel ban coming in days, Pence says
President Trump is expected to finalize a new travel order in the next few days, Vice President Pence said in an interview.
Pence told CBS News Wednesday that the administration is “putting the finishing touches” on the new executive order.
Trump has not laid out specific changes on the new plan, but The Associated Press—citing four U.S. officials—reported that the order will remove Iraq from the list of countries whose citizens face a temporary ban. Those predominately Muslim countries include Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The new order includes other changes as well. The officials said the 12-page document no longer singles out Syrian refugees for an indefinite ban and instead includes them as part of a general, 120-day suspension of new refugee admissions.
The officials also said the order won't include any explicit exemption for religious minorities in the countries targeted by the travel ban. Critics had accused the administration of adding such language to help Christians get into the United States while excluding Muslims.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Fox News could not immediately confirm that Iraq was taken off the list.
Trump signed his original executive order in late January. It sparked immediate confusion, panic and outrage as some travelers were detained in U.S. airports before being sent back overseas and others were barred from boarding flights at foreign airports.
The government initially blocked U.S. green card holders before offering those legal residents special permission to come into the country. It finally decided the order didn't apply to them.
The State Department provisionally revoked roughly 60,000 valid visas in all, before a federal judge in Washington state blocked the government from carrying out the ban. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.
Under the revised order, officials said, all existing visas will be honored.
In his first address to a joint session of Congress, Trump on Tuesday evening defended his effort.
"We will shortly take new steps to keep our nation safe and to keep out those who would do us harm," he said.
After Trump signed the original order, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi refuted the ban and said he would consider reciprocal measures. Many Iraqi lawmakers urged the government to ban Americans from Iraq in response, despite the potential effects that might have on the anti-IS fight.
Al-Abadi then met with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in Baghdad this month and underscored the U.S.-Iraqi partnership. And Mattis walked back comments made by Trump, suggesting that Americans could get another chance to seize Iraqi oil as compensation for its military efforts there.
"We're not in Iraq to seize anybody's oil," Mattis told reporters on that trip. Al-Abadi also met with Vice President Pence in Munich earlier this month, where the two publicly discussed ways of strengthening cooperation.
Obama administration reportedly raced to preserve intelligence on possible contact between Russians and Trump associates
In the final hours of Barack Obama's presidency, some White House officials reportedly raced to spread and preserve information about possible communications between associates of then-candidate Donald Trump and Russians.
The New York Times, citing former American officials, reported that these officials were concerned that the information they were gaining on the Russian meddling in the election and the possible campaign contact could be compromised with the new administration, and they wanted to set up any future investigation with the information.
According to The Times, after Obama asked for an investigation into Russian tampering into the elections, officials found some "damning" evidence.
A former intelligence official confirmed to Fox News that the Obama administration was determined to keep the Russian issue alive and data on Moscow's election interference was circulated broadly.
The usual intelligence practice is to circulate assessments privately, but such was the gravity of Russia's actions that there were two versions - one for the public to digest and the other classified, the former official said.
The New York Times reported that intelligence agencies pushed forward as much “raw” intelligence they could analyze. The intelligence reports were also reportedly labeled a low classification level, so they would be accessible to more government workers — and some European allies.
The Obama officials reportedly wanted to make sure that as many individuals — with the proper clearances — could see the intelligence. One of the tactics reportedly used was that officials asked pointed questions during intelligence briefings. The report said the answers to those questions are archived.
Congressional staffers have said they are unaware of any evidence that materials related to Russia are not being preserved.
But Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said last week: "There is real concern that some in the administration may try to cover up its ties to Russia by deleting emails, texts and other records that could shine a light on those connections. These records are likely to be the subject of executive branch as well as congressional investigations and must be preserved."
The Times report was released the same day that allegations emerged that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had two conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. during last year’s presidential campaign.
The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. investigators had examined contacts between Sessions and Russian officials and that the Justice Department was "wringing its hands" about how to proceed in the matter.
The Journal also reported that Sessions did not know that his communications were under investigation.
Reports about the meetings appeared to contradict a statement Sessions made during his confirmation hearing to become attorney general.
Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., how he would respond "if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign."When contacted by Fox News late Wednesday, Sessions said, "I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false."
Earlier this year, the FBI interviewed Michael Flynn, then Trump's national security adviser, about his contacts with Russia's ambassador to the U.S. after the election. Flynn was fired after it was revealed that he misled Vice President Pence and other White House officials about the nature of his discussions with the envoy.
Trump, for his part, has denied that his campaign had any contact with Russian officials. The Times report pointed out that Trump has accused Obama officials with playing up the Russia story.
“The only new piece of information that has come to light is that political appointees in the Obama administration have sought to create a false narrative to make an excuse for their own defeat in the election,” Sean Spicer, the current White House spokesman, said, according to The Times. “There continues to be no there, there.”
The intelligence community has assessed that Russia's hacking of Democratic groups and operatives was carried out to help Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Trump has denied having any knowledge that aides were in touch with Russian intelligence agents during the election.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
I'm a Democrat and it's time for our party to apologize to America
Can the Democrats unite behind DNC chair Tom Perez? |
Now that President Trump has delivered his State of
the Union-style address, my fellow Democrats are settling in for a long
fight. Our new DNC Chairman Tom Perez is leading the charge, promising
to be a “nightmare” for the president and his fellow Republicans.
The reason is clear: Mr. Perez tastes political blood in the water. Trump’s approval rating is at historic lows, hammered by allegations of Russian collusion, a contentious immigration ban, and emotional Twitter outbursts.
Yet smart Democrats know that our position with the American people is just as weak. We hold the fewest number of state legislatures, governorships, and federal offices than at any point since the 1920s. And it’s a trend that started well before the 2016 election.
In short, America isn’t buying what Democrats are selling.
The reasons for this are numerous, and they include efforts by Republicans to suppress voters in North Carolina and gerrymander Congressional districts in Wisconsin.
But finger pointing at GOP operatives hides a much more painful truth.
Six weeks ago, the U.S. Senate considered an amendment that would have allowed Americans to import cheap prescription drugs from Canada. This common sense solution would have saved families thousands of dollars – and lives. Not surprisingly, 72 percent of voters supported the proposal.
Yet the amendment failed, with 14 Democratic Senators rejecting it.
What could explain their vote? Cynics highlight the fact that many of these officials collect large sums of campaign cash from pharmaceutical giants. Top collectors of drug money include Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), all of whom voted against the bill.
Fair or not, this leaves voters with a very clear impression: Democrats are more interested in securing their reelection than helping sick Americans.
Regrettably, this wouldn’t be the first time we’ve been accused of abandoning principles for profit.
Starting in the mid 1990s, President Clinton and other Democrats embraced free trade deals – first NAFTA and then with China – despite clear warnings about the damage both would cause manufacturing America.
As it turns out, the alarms were well placed: studies have shown that these trade deals have left many communities throughout the U.S. in poverty and deeply mired in unemployment.
Why then were we surprised when these voters turned down Secretary Clinton considering her support for not only the trade deals but also the bankers who benefitted from them?
All told, many Americans have come to view us as hypocrites. And I don’t blame them. We are Perez’s nightmare.
Which leaves us with a critical question: how can Democrats win back these angry voters?
Contrary to Perez’s recent statements, it’s not about “communicating our affirmative message.” It’s about an apologizing for what we’ve done – or chosen not to do.
Let’s start with trade. For 20 years, my fellow Democrats have advanced global deals that left too many behind, particularly in rural and blue collar America. We discardeded our roots as champions of the working class in exchange for campaign contributions.
For that, America, we are sorry. We failed you.
While we’re at it, let’s be honest about how we’ve tackled environmental issues. For 20 years, our important and virtuous commitment to a healthy planet wasn’t properly balanced with the needs of workers in places like Appalachia and the Pacific Northwest. In other words, we shut down the coal and timber industries without a plan to safeguard the communities left behind.
For that, we are sorry. Democrats let you down.
Finally, we have failed the country in the realm of national security. For the past 20 years, our repeated mistakes in Iraq, Libya, and Syria have left American families with more death and less stability. These botched conflicts have also pushed refugees – and terrorists – on a chaotic march around the globe.
For that, we are sorry. We have blood on our hands.
Yet apologies ring hollow without a remedy. We have to repair the harm that we’ve caused in order to inspire a new beginning. Elected leaders like Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) and Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg are offering intriguing paths forward while Democrats like me are outlining initiatives like “Our American Oath.” This effort – to be launched in the coming months – promises a new covenant with the American people.
Without question, this approach of apologies and making amends is horrifying for hyper-partisan Democrats. In some cases, they (correctly) believe Republicans share equal blame. In other cases, it’s simply because they hate apologizing. I fully expect this to be their response.
And so does science.
In a book wonderfully titled, “Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me),” the authors reveal that our brains are hardwired to make us believe we are always right, even if faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, no one escapes this basic element of human psychology.
But believing we’re perfect takes a toll. In our personal lives, righteousness causes us to abandon or be abandoned by the people we cherish the most – family, friends, and partners.
It’s no different in our political lives. Just ask the voters in rural America and the Rust Belt who stayed home or voted for Trump in 2016. Or ask the voters who have punished us by reducing our power to the lowest levels since the 1920s.
All of which leaves the Democratic Party with an important choice. We can apologize and make amends, or we can walk down Perez’s path of nightmares.
If we follow Perez, rest assured that we will continue to lose. Why? The humble majority of this country will grow ever more exhausted, first by Trump’s fiery antics and then by our knee-jerk partisanship.
Alternatively, we can choose to be men and women who inspire integrity and humility. With an apology and better path forward, we can do something unique in American history: we will show that not only can we win an election but that we deserve to.
We will give America something to vote for, not against.
Bryan Dean Wright is a former CIA ops officer and member of the Democratic Party. He contributes on issues of politics, national security, and the economy. Follow him on Twitter @BryanDeanWright.
The reason is clear: Mr. Perez tastes political blood in the water. Trump’s approval rating is at historic lows, hammered by allegations of Russian collusion, a contentious immigration ban, and emotional Twitter outbursts.
Yet smart Democrats know that our position with the American people is just as weak. We hold the fewest number of state legislatures, governorships, and federal offices than at any point since the 1920s. And it’s a trend that started well before the 2016 election.
In short, America isn’t buying what Democrats are selling.
The reasons for this are numerous, and they include efforts by Republicans to suppress voters in North Carolina and gerrymander Congressional districts in Wisconsin.
But finger pointing at GOP operatives hides a much more painful truth.
Six weeks ago, the U.S. Senate considered an amendment that would have allowed Americans to import cheap prescription drugs from Canada. This common sense solution would have saved families thousands of dollars – and lives. Not surprisingly, 72 percent of voters supported the proposal.
Yet the amendment failed, with 14 Democratic Senators rejecting it.
What could explain their vote? Cynics highlight the fact that many of these officials collect large sums of campaign cash from pharmaceutical giants. Top collectors of drug money include Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), all of whom voted against the bill.
Fair or not, this leaves voters with a very clear impression: Democrats are more interested in securing their reelection than helping sick Americans.
Regrettably, this wouldn’t be the first time we’ve been accused of abandoning principles for profit.
Starting in the mid 1990s, President Clinton and other Democrats embraced free trade deals – first NAFTA and then with China – despite clear warnings about the damage both would cause manufacturing America.
As it turns out, the alarms were well placed: studies have shown that these trade deals have left many communities throughout the U.S. in poverty and deeply mired in unemployment.
Why then were we surprised when these voters turned down Secretary Clinton considering her support for not only the trade deals but also the bankers who benefitted from them?
All told, many Americans have come to view us as hypocrites. And I don’t blame them. We are Perez’s nightmare.
Which leaves us with a critical question: how can Democrats win back these angry voters?
Contrary to Perez’s recent statements, it’s not about “communicating our affirmative message.” It’s about an apologizing for what we’ve done – or chosen not to do.
Let’s start with trade. For 20 years, my fellow Democrats have advanced global deals that left too many behind, particularly in rural and blue collar America. We discardeded our roots as champions of the working class in exchange for campaign contributions.
For that, America, we are sorry. We failed you.
While we’re at it, let’s be honest about how we’ve tackled environmental issues. For 20 years, our important and virtuous commitment to a healthy planet wasn’t properly balanced with the needs of workers in places like Appalachia and the Pacific Northwest. In other words, we shut down the coal and timber industries without a plan to safeguard the communities left behind.
For that, we are sorry. Democrats let you down.
Finally, we have failed the country in the realm of national security. For the past 20 years, our repeated mistakes in Iraq, Libya, and Syria have left American families with more death and less stability. These botched conflicts have also pushed refugees – and terrorists – on a chaotic march around the globe.
For that, we are sorry. We have blood on our hands.
Yet apologies ring hollow without a remedy. We have to repair the harm that we’ve caused in order to inspire a new beginning. Elected leaders like Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) and Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg are offering intriguing paths forward while Democrats like me are outlining initiatives like “Our American Oath.” This effort – to be launched in the coming months – promises a new covenant with the American people.
Without question, this approach of apologies and making amends is horrifying for hyper-partisan Democrats. In some cases, they (correctly) believe Republicans share equal blame. In other cases, it’s simply because they hate apologizing. I fully expect this to be their response.
And so does science.
In a book wonderfully titled, “Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me),” the authors reveal that our brains are hardwired to make us believe we are always right, even if faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, no one escapes this basic element of human psychology.
But believing we’re perfect takes a toll. In our personal lives, righteousness causes us to abandon or be abandoned by the people we cherish the most – family, friends, and partners.
It’s no different in our political lives. Just ask the voters in rural America and the Rust Belt who stayed home or voted for Trump in 2016. Or ask the voters who have punished us by reducing our power to the lowest levels since the 1920s.
All of which leaves the Democratic Party with an important choice. We can apologize and make amends, or we can walk down Perez’s path of nightmares.
If we follow Perez, rest assured that we will continue to lose. Why? The humble majority of this country will grow ever more exhausted, first by Trump’s fiery antics and then by our knee-jerk partisanship.
Alternatively, we can choose to be men and women who inspire integrity and humility. With an apology and better path forward, we can do something unique in American history: we will show that not only can we win an election but that we deserve to.
We will give America something to vote for, not against.
Bryan Dean Wright is a former CIA ops officer and member of the Democratic Party. He contributes on issues of politics, national security, and the economy. Follow him on Twitter @BryanDeanWright.
U.S. Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens |
In an emotional moment that drew the largest applause of the night, President Trump paid tribute Tuesday to the widow of U.S. Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens, who was killed in a counterterrorism raid in Yemen last month.
“Our veterans have delivered for this nation—and now we must deliver for them,” Trump said in his address to a joint session of Congress as he introduced Carryn Owens, who elicited an extended standing ovation from the entire chamber.
“Ryan died as he lived: a warrior, and a hero – battling against terrorism and securing our nation,” Trump said.
Owens' widow could be seen sobbing as the chamber applauded.
William "Ryan" Owens, a 36-year-old father of three, was the only U.S. victim in the Jan. 27 raid on a suspected Al Qaeda compound. At least 16 civilians and 14 militants were killed in the operation, which the Pentagon said was aimed at capturing information on potential Al Qaeda attacks against the U.S. and its allies.
Trump said he met with Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, and quoted him as saying, “Ryan was a part of a highly successful raid that generated large amounts of vital intelligence that will lead to many more victories in the future against our enemies.”
Last week, Owens’ father, Bill Owens, a retired Fort Lauderdale police detective and veteran, demanded an investigation into the planning of the raid, and slammed Trump for the timing of the operation.
Trump said that Owens’ legacy is “etched into eternity.”
"Ryan is looking down right now and he is very happy because I think he just broke a record," Trump said as lawmakers and guests gave a prolonged standing ovation.
"For as the Bible teaches us, there is no greater act of love than to lay down one's life for one's friends -- Ryan laid down his life for his friends, for his country and for our freedom-- we will never forget Ryan."
Trump's scores with 'common ground' speech and a can-do view of government
Donald Trump, the most unconventional president of our lifetimes, did a very conventional thing tonight, delivering a message of unity in a soft voice to a joint session of Congress.
This was a speech about what government can accomplish, not a Reaganesque “government is the problem” appeal.
It was a more uplifting speech than his inaugural address, with several appeals for bipartisanship and some lines that could have been delivered by a Democrat. While Trump is not a great orator, he spoke for an hour with confidence and a polish for one who didn’t spend years delivering political speeches.
And this is not the kind of language we are accustomed to hearing from Donald Trump, who on Jan. 20 spoke of American “carnage”:
“We are one people, with one destiny. We all bleed the same blood. We all salute the same flag. And we are all made by the same God.”
It almost sounded like a reset, at least atmospherically.
The 45th president signaled that this was a different kind of speech by beginning with Black History Month and a denunciation of anti-Semitic incidents. He hit his major themes—cutting regulations, reducing crime, building a wall, lowering taxes, creating jobs—but without the harsh partisan edge. And while Democrats, who mostly sat on their hands, disagree with much of his agenda, Trump was trying to reassure the audience that things are heading in the right direction.
Even after ticking off what he said were the failures of the Obama administration, Trump told the lawmakers they had “to work past the differences of party” and “united for the good of the country”—a rhetorical olive branch that may or may not be seized by both sides.
Citing Ike’s national highway program, Trump called for a trillion-dollar infrastructure program that could hold some appeal for Democrats. But cutaway shots showed people like Elizabeth Warren refusing to clap.
Trump even called, without elaboration, for “positive immigration reform.”
The president got perhaps his loudest ovation from the GOP side in promising to repeal and replace the “imploding ObamaCare disaster”—and a few Democrats made thumbs-down motions. As on other issues, Trump sketched only broad pictures, but said they would ensure that “no one is left out.”
It was a bit of a laundry list, like every State of the Union, from rare diseases to school choice, and to child care and paid family leave, a special Ivanka interest.
But there was a disconnect with budgetary reality. While Trump touted the major boost he wants in defense spending, he didn’t mention his plan for $54 billion in offsetting domestic budget cuts that the White House announced Monday. For instance, Trump said he would promote “clean air and clean water,” but his budget blueprint would slash EPA’s budget.
Once the pundits are done dissecting the speech, we will return to the more pedestrian debate over the budget.
The budget argument has been raging in Washington for three decades: Republicans want more defense spending, Democrats want more social spending. And while both parties agree that entitlements are a mess, the Republicans want much more aggressive.
This was an issue in the Clinton administration, when Democrats ripped Newt Gingrich over proposed cuts to Medicare that he maintained were simply slowing the rate of growth in the massive health care program.
This was an issue in the Bush administration, when the president couldn’t get his party to hold hearings on his plan to partially privatize Social Security.
This was an issue in the Obama administration, when the president was willing to yield ground on entitlements as part of a grand bargain with John Boehner that never materialized.
But Trump is different. He campaigned on what is essentially the Democratic position: No cuts to Medicare and Social Security, not even in the longer term. But since entitlements are 60 percent of the federal budget, that means the $54-billion in cuts will have to come out of a relatively small portion of the bureaucracy.
Unless, of course, the economy booms. “I think the money is going to come from a revved-up economy,” Trump told “Fox & Friends.” This is the supply-side argument that Ronald Reagan made and that Washington has debated ever since.
Trump’s preliminary budget plan drew negative reviews in much of the media, and not just from liberal commentators.
National Review, which opposed Trump in the primaries, said his blueprint suggests “that his fanciful campaign promises — to solve the nation’s pecuniary woes by targeting ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ and cutting foreign aid — have not been adapted to fiscal reality. It’s still in the earliest stages, but his plan portends a significant increase to an already massive federal debt…
“The graver menace is our entitlement programs, which at present constitute 60 percent of federal government spending; they are expected to reach two-thirds of federal spending within a decade. The president’s budget, though, is designed to protect the largest of those programs — and not just from cuts to benefit levels, but from any cuts at all. This is silly.”
A New York Times editorial, rather than simply arguing that the president can’t pay for a 10 percent hike in defense spending, says the Trump plan “won’t strengthen America’s security, and might, in fact, undermine it…
“The $600 billion yearly Pentagon budget is certainly not too low, given the drawdown of troops fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Trump should be asking himself not how to heave more billions at the Pentagon but how to make sure it is spending its existing budget wisely.”
This, says the Times, is “a choice that would harm millions of Americans while shoveling more profits to military contractors.”
A Washington Post editorial focuses more on fuzzy math, saying it’s “distressingly likely that the plans he has would make the fiscal situation far worse.
“Reality check: The combined budget for the EPA and the State Department was only about $46 billion in the current fiscal year. Even eliminating them entirely could not pay for the defense boost Mr. Trump is apparently contemplating.”
But here’s the thing: Trump is a veteran negotiator. This is his opening bid. So the real question is whether he can make a deal with 535 lawmakers.
Trump, in speech to Congress, calls to ‘restart the engine’ of US economy
President Trump declared Tuesday that a “new chapter of American greatness is now beginning” as he made economic revival the centerpiece of his first address to Congress – issuing a clarion call to “restart the engine of the American economy” through tax cuts, better trade deals, immigration enforcement and a $1 trillion infrastructure program.
He also called on Congress to replace what he called the “imploding ObamaCare disaster” with legislation that lowers costs and expands access, an ambitious goal for GOP lawmakers still trying to come together on a plan.
The president outlined his agenda in an address to a joint session of Congress that lasted roughly an hour and focused largely on priorities at home, more than abroad. He offered a decidedly upbeat vision for the future of the country that stood in contrast to his at-times foreboding inauguration address.
“Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed. Every problem can be solved. And every hurting family can find healing, and hope,” Trump said, urging lawmakers to "join forces" to deliver.
Trump for the most part traded the contentious and punchy tone of the last few weeks for loftier – some might say more presidential – rhetoric. Declaring “the time for small thinking is over,” Trump appealed to the country to “believe, once more, in America.”
“A new chapter of American greatness is now beginning. A new national pride is sweeping across our nation,” he said. “And a new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp.”
He described his address as a “message of unity and strength.”
The generally well-received speech could mark an opportunity for Trump to reset his young presidency after a rocky start in which clashes with the media and staffing controversies at times overshadowed action on the jobs front.
In perhaps the most memorable moment of the night, the audience broke out into extended applause as Trump introduced the widow of William "Ryan" Owens, the Navy SEAL killed in a raid in Yemen last month. Carryn Owens sobbed as lawmakers gave her a standing ovation and Trump said the raid he participated in yielded vital intelligence. His “legacy is etched into eternity,” Trump said.
In between the more dramatic moments were a host of policy prescriptions that could have a big impact on discussions in Congress.
Trump called for a “national rebuilding,” urging Congress to pass legislation that produces a $1 trillion public-private investment in infrastructure.
Speaking to a key campaign promise that has yet to be realized, he said his team is developing “historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone.” He vowed a “big, big cut” including “massive tax relief for the middle class.”
And he urged Congress to replace ObamaCare “with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and at the same time, provide better health care.”
He outlined “principles” to guide negotiations, including a call for Americans with pre-existing coverage to keep access to care, for states to have “flexibility” with Medicaid, and for Americans to be able to buy insurance across state lines.
Calling education the “civil rights issue of our time,” Trump also urged Congress to pass an education bill funding “school choice.”
While laying out his agenda, Trump touted his early-administration accomplishments while claiming he inherited many problems.
And as he did during the presidential campaign, he pushed a nationalist message, making big promises for what will happen when America puts its citizens first: “Dying industries will come roaring back to life. … Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways gleaming across our very, very beautiful land. … Above all else, we will keep our promises to the American people.”
He said his job is to represent the United States, not the world.
In calling to “restart” the American jobs engine, Trump said the U.S. must make it “easier for companies to do business in the United States, and much, much harder for companies to leave our country.”
He also defended his stepped-up deportations and other border security plans, casting his immigration agenda as part of the broader economic plan. By enforcing immigration laws, he said, “we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions and billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone.” He joined GOP lawmakers seeking reforms to legal immigration – and potentially reopened the broader debate in Congress by saying immigration reform is possible.
Trump's first official status report to Congress came amid a fast-paced opening volley of activity at the start of his term: a slew of executive actions, a forthcoming budget proposal and various side-deals with American companies aimed at creating jobs. Trump was eager to highlight those accomplishments, but also faces early challenges: an order suspending refugee and other admissions on hold by the courts, questions about his team’s contacts with Russia and a Congress that has not yet moved legislation on key priorities.
The biggest task ahead is Republicans’ drive to repeal and replace ObamaCare. As Trump appealed for a comprehensive package, some in the party have been divided over the plans being privately discussed at the Capitol.
House Speaker Paul Ryan played down divisions ahead of Tuesday’s speech. “This is a plan that we are all working on together,” he told reporters. “There aren’t rival plans here.”
After the speech, Ryan applauded Trump for what he called a "home run."
But the official Democratic response offered a reminder of the resistance Trump will face on his legislative agenda, particularly on ObamaCare.
Former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear warned those efforts would strip affordable health insurance from Americans. “This isn’t a game. It’s life and death for people,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...